CAR_Public/161124.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 24, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 235




                            Headlines

A-1 LIMOUSINE: Motion to Compel Arbitration Granted in Part
ABBOTT LABS: Court Rules on Jurisdiction Over Depakote Suits
ALBUQUERQUE, NM: "McClendon" Intervenors' Bid to Show Cause OK'd
ALERE INC: Faces "Khalid" Suit Over Disclosures Related to Arriva
ALLY FINANCIAL: M.D. Pa. Class Certification Rules Suspended

AMERIFINANCIAL: Faces "Nappi" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
APPLE INC: Sued Over Depriving Customer of Paid Warranty Coverage
ARIZONA: Patients & Caregivers File Suit Over Marijuana Program
AUTO FRANK: "Collins" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Overdraft Fees

BANK OF AMERICA: Preying on Prisoners, Class Suit Says
BAYCARE HEALTH: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Bernard" Suit Claims
BF LABS: Court Allows Alexander to Amend Motion to Certify Class
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: "Hennington" Suit Alleges RICO Act Violations
BOYD BILOXI: Class Settlement in "Bennett" Suit Gets Final OK

BUD ANTLE: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
CALIFORNIA: "Calloway" Suit v. Prison Staff Dismissed
CENTENE CORP: Faces "Sanchez" Securities Class Suit in Calif.
CERTIFIED EMS INC: Misclassifies Workers, "Mendoza" Suit Alleges
CHAMPION SECURITY: "Davis" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA

CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION: Appeal of Case Dismissal Still Pending
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Final Deal Approval Hearing in March 2017
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Nix "Sciabacucchi" Case Underway
CHEMTURA CORPORATION: Sued Over Merger Agreement with Lanxess
CHEVRON U.S.A.: Court Narrows Claims in Royalties Suit

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: "Garcia" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
CIENA HEALTH: "Butler" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
CIGNA CORPORATION: Sued Over Deceptive Prescription Drugs Pricing
CLERMONT YORK: Court Rules in Tenants' Class Suit
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: "Gerboc" Class Action Dismissed in Part

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Grae" Class Suit
CREDIT CONTROL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Nguyen" Suit Says
DIGITAL NETWORKS: "McMahan" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages
DOLLAR THRIFTY: "McKinnon" Plaintiffs May File 5th Amended Suit
DROPCAR INC: Faces "Padilla" Suit Under FLSA, New York Labor Law

ECM ENERGY: "Coverly" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
EOG RESOURCES: Summary Judgment Bid in "Roco" Suit Partly Granted
EVERYDAY HEALTH: Faces "Jordan" Lawsuit Over Ziff Davis Merger
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Court Tosses "Illobre" FDCPA Class Suit
FIRST BANCSHARES: Faces "Raul" Securities Class Suit in Miss.

GCA SERVICES: Not "Transportation Employer", Court Says
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Ratliff Seeks to Stop Sale to Asia Pacific
GIANT COURIERS: Faces "Quartey" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
GPS GLOBAL: Faces "Flournoy" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
GRC LANDSCAPING: Faces "Wright" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

GUARDIAN PROTECTION: Pa. Judge Sends "Fitzhenry" Case to D. S.C.
GULFPORT ENERGY: Faces "Slone" Suit Seeking Payment of Overtime
HERR FOODS: Faces "Merisier" Suit in East. District New York
HILLSBOROUGH, CA: Overcharges Residents for Water, Suit Says
HOSPITAL OF MORRISTOWN: "Jones" FDCPA Complaint Dismissed

HOTEL CHANDLER: Faces "Riley" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
IDEAL TAX: Faces "Hernandez" Class Suit in South. Dist. Florida
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Faces "Nunez" Securities Suit Over 2013 10-K
INSMED INC: Bucks County Employees Appointed Lead Plaintiff
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Claims in Slocum Chemical Leak Suit Trimmed

INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Claims in Bolton Chemical Leak Suit Trimmed
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Court Narrows Claims in "Jarrell" Suit
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Court Narrows Claims in "Sanders" Suit
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Court Rejects Motion to Stay "Cashon" Suit
KRISPY KREME: Faces Class Suit Over Doughnuts

LINARDI CONSTRUCTION: "Concepcion" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
LKQ CORPORATION: "Pinson" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
LOBEL'S OF NEW YORK: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over ADA Violation
LUDLOW MUSIC: Judge Allows Copyright Class Action to Proceed
MCCORMICK & CO: Judge Narrows Claims in Pepper Practices Suit

METLIFE INC: To Defend Against Westland Police Suit
METLIFE INC: Approval of Birmingham Case Settlement Sought
METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Owens" TCA Litigation
METLIFE INC: "Robainas" Class Action Appeal Still Pending
METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Intoccia" Class Suit Pending

METLIFE INC: Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied
METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Voshall" Class Suit
METLIFE INC: "Martin" Plaintiff Files Appeal
METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Lau" Class Suit
METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Newman" Class Suit

MICHIGAN BEACH: "Gillian" Suit Seeks to Stop "Illegal" Charges
MITEL NETWORKS: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Vassar Questions Rules on Players' Transfer
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Bid to Permanently Enjoin "Dryer" Nixed

NATIONAL GENERAL: Faces "Archamdeau" Suit in W.D. Washington
ONEAZ CREDIT: Sued by Koon for Not Paying Proper OT Under FLSA
ONLINE INFORMATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
ORMSBEE ENTERPRISES: Hall et al. Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
PARK KING: "Pintor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

PARKING SYSTEMS: "Thomas" Files Wage and Hour Suit in New York
PAYAM INC: Faces "Lahlou" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Suit in Calif. Over Baby Wipes
PTC THERAPEUTICS: 3 Securities Suits Pending in New Jersey
RBC CAPITAL: Faces "Luis" Suit for Breach of Contract

REAL MASTERS: Fails to Pay Overtime or Minimum Wages, Ortiz Says
REFRI COOL: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, "Marrero" Suit Claims
ROSEWOOD HOTELS: Faces "Marett" Suit in N.Y. Over ADA Violation
SAN JOSE, CA: Court Approves Service by Publication
SARASOTA COUNTY SCHOOL: Leo Seeks to Recover Overtime Premium Pay

SEARS HOLDINGS: "Louis" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
SELECTIVE SERVICE: National Coalition Suit Transferred to Texas
SERVICE 1ST: "Mesh" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
SONY CORP: $19.5MM Settlement Fails to Win Final Court OK
SPHIER EMERGENCY: "Stepherson" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Settlement in "Forsta" Case Gets Final Approval
SUNPOWER CORP: Dec. 8 Hearing for Lead Plaintiff Bid Set
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: "Klein" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breaches
TONOGA INC: Faces "Burdick" Class Suit in New York
TONOGA INC: Faces "Plouffe" Class Suit in New York

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: $25 Million Settlement Reached
TRXADE GROUP: Court Preliminarily Approves $200,000 Settlement
UNITED PARCEL: Trial in Morgate Suit Scheduled for Mid-2017
UNITED PARCEL: 9th Circuit Briefing Complete in AFMS Appeal
UNITED SITE: "Madison" Suit Seeks Payment of Wages Under FLSA

UNIVERSAL USED PALLETS: Accused by Pino of Not Paying OT Wages
VECTREN CORPORATION: Suit by SIGECO Employees in Discovery
VIRGINIA CLEANING: Faces "Rivero" Suit for Not Paying Overtime
VOLKSWAGEN: Lawsuits Filed Over Gasoline-Powered Audi Models
WATSON FAMILY: "Elhajjami" Suit Alleges Employment Discrimination

WB HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss "Wasvary" Class Suit Underway
XEROX CORP: Oklahoma Firefighters Fund Files Class Suit
XEROX HR: Retirement Plans File Class Suit
YOURPEOPLE INC: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA


                            *********


A-1 LIMOUSINE: Motion to Compel Arbitration Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action in the case
captioned, MICHAEL KOBREN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. A-1 LIMOUSINE INC., MICHAEL
STARR, and JEFFREY STARR, Defendants, Case No. 16-516-BRM-DEA
(D.N.J.).

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants A-1 Limousine Inc. (A-1),
Michael Starr and Jeffrey Starr (Defendants) as a Driver from
approximately July 2008 until approximately October 2015.
Plaintiff's duties as a Driver included, among other things,
operating the Small Vehicles and Plaintiff was paid an hourly wage
of $8.38 per hour plus gratuities.

Michael Kobren, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, sued Defendants. In their Complaint alleges Drivers
frequently worked over 40 hours per week, but Defendants failed to
pay Plaintiff and/or other Drivers any overtime premium
compensation for hours worked over 40 per week. Instead,
Defendants allegedly paid Drivers (including Plaintiff) only an
amount equal to the total hours worked multiplied by the straight-
time hourly wage, plus gratuities.

On January 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a two-count Complaint. In
Count I, Plaintiff asserts, on a collective basis, violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq.
(FLSA). Count II asserted, on behalf of a putative class,
violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. Sections
34:11-56a, et seq., but was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a
Stipulation, So-Ordered by the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson,
U.S.D.J. on May 13, 2016.

Defendants move to compel arbitration and stay the action based on
the arbitration provision in the Assigned Employee Notice &
Acknowledgements executed by Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff argues the class/collective action waiver is invalid and
unenforceable because it violates the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA). Plaintiff also argues that enforcement of the cost-sharing
provision would prevent Plaintiff(s) from vindicating his (their)
statutory rights. Plaintiff argues these provisions of the
arbitration agreement are unconscionable.

In his Opinion and dated November 7, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/qXSCaO from Leagle.com, Judge Martinotti granted
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration as to the Employee Notice
& Acknowledgements, exclusive of the provision that the "costs of
arbitration will be shared equally by the parties," and require
Defendants to bear the costs of arbitration and the amount of
filing fees in excess of the cost of filing a complaint in federal
court.

The Court found that the class arbitration waiver is not
unconscionable even assuming, as Plaintiff contends, the Employee
Notice & Acknowledgements is a contract of adhesion.  Finding no
inherent conflict between the FAA and NLRA, the Court enforced the
agreements since the class-arbitration waiver is merely procedural
device that can be contractually waived by the parties without
infringing upon any of Plaintiffs' statutory rights.

As to motion to stay the action, the Court said Plaintiffs has
failed to show sufficient hardship or inequity to justify a stay
in the matter and a stay of the motion to compel arbitration
pending an ultimate disposition from the NLRB would harm
Defendants by forcing them to litigate the claims in court until
the NLRB has "completed its ongoing investigation" or the Third
Circuit has conclusively ruled on the issue, effectively negating
the potential benefits of the arbitration agreement to the parties
and to judicial economy and efficiency.

Michael Kobren is represented by:

      Mark Justin Gottesfeld, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      THE WINEBRAKE LAW FIRM LLC
      Twining Office Center
      Suite 211
      715 Twining Road
      Dresher, PA 19025

A-1 Limousine Inc., et al. are represented by Randall C. Schauer,
Esq. -- rschauer@foxrothschild.com -- Wayne E. Pinkstone, Esq. --
wpinkstone@foxrothschild.com -- and Thomas Richard Basta, Esq. --
tbasta@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP


ABBOTT LABS: Court Rules on Jurisdiction Over Depakote Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE DEPAKOTE: RHEALYN ALEXANDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., and ABBVIE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-52-NJR-SCW (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J.
Rosenstengel dismissed certain parties and cases in the Depakote
litigation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On September 23, 2016, the Court raised, sua sponte, whether
subject matter jurisdiction exists over certain cases in the
Depakote litigation.  The primary concern was the small percentage
of cases that allege complete diversity of citizenship as the sole
basis for subject matter jurisdiction despite clear incomplete
diversity between the parties.  While both sides agree that the
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over 106 of the 116 directly
filed cases, the parties differ on the remaining 10 cases.
Ironically, the plaintiffs asserted that the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over all 10 cases, while the defendants
asserted that the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over
all 10 cases.

For seven of the 10 cases, the defendants asserted that subject
matter jurisdiction exists because "Plaintiffs alleged [in their
complaints] that 'this court has subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332' (or substantially similar
language invoking '28 U.S.C. section 1332')."  They argued that by
referencing the generic section 1332 diversity statute combined
with the assertion that complete diversity exists, the plaintiffs
intended to invoke the specific mass action provision under
subsection 1332(d).

Judge Rosenstengel found that it would be clear error to make such
a sweeping assumption regarding the plaintiffs' intention from the
plain language contained in the complaints.  The judge explained
that subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA) requires a proposal by the plaintiffs to try the cases
jointly before the mass action provision is triggered.

"For the seven cases listed below, there is no reference to the
Depakote mass action, CAFA, or even any request for a joint trial.
The presence of an existing mass action within a district does not
bestow federal subject matter jurisdiction on a case simply
because they each allege similar facts and legal theories.  The
seven cases in this category do not present a federal question or
invoke the provisions of CAFA, and contrary to the assertion in
the complaints, complete diversity of citizenship does not
currently exist," said Judge Rosenstengel.

To correct this jurisdictional defect, Judge Rosenstengel turned
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, which allows the Court to
drop a nondiverse dispensable party to secure subject matter
jurisdiction in the remaining action.  The judge found it clear
that the nondiverse plaintiffs in the seven Depakote cases are
dispensable.  The judge noted that each plaintiff has an
individual and distinct claim against the defendants, and it is
entirely possible to accord complete relief among the remaining
parties in each of the individual plaintiff's actions.

Accordingly, the following plaintiffs were dismissed from the
Depakote proceedings, without prejudice:

     1) Plaintiffs James Vailes and minor
        Barbour, et al. v. Abbott Labs., Inc.
        Case No. 13-CV-0622

     2) Plaintiffs J.V. Sarah J. DuBeau and minor
        Plaintiffs C.D. Sarah J. DuBeau and minor
        Moore, et al. v. Abbott Labs., Inc.
        Case No. 13-CV-0890

     3) Plaintiffs J.D. Stacy Clemmons and minor
        Milam, et al. v. Abbott Labs., Inc.
        Case No. 14-CV-0001

     4) Plaintiff A.C. Pamela Reyes and minor
        Alexander, et al. v. Abbott Labs., Inc.
        Case No. 15-CV-0102

     5) Plaintiff J.A. and AbbVie Inc. Rebecca Jackson and minor
        Jackson v. Abbott
        Case No. 15-CV-0186

     6) Plaintiff I.G. Labs., Inc. Lorri McDanel and minor
        Bauman, et al. v. Abbott Labs., Inc.
        Case No. 15-CV-0472

     7) Plaintiff A.M. and AbbVie Inc.
        John Marzigliano Sanders, et al. v. Abbott Labs., Inc.
        and AbbVie Inc.
        Case No. 16-CV-0021

The remaining two directly filed Depakote cases (Case Nos. 13-cv-
1041, Clay, et al., v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., (S.D. Ill.
2013) and 13-cv-1043, Taft et al., v. Abbott Laboratories, et al.,
(S.D. Ill. 2013)) contain only nondiverse parties such that Rule
21 cannot be utilized to ensure subject matter jurisdiction.
Also, the complaints in these two cases expressly assert that the
Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the mass action
jurisdictional provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d)(2) and
(d)(11).

The defendants contended that subject matter jurisdiction is
obtained when a plaintiff files a separate parallel complaint
which invokes CAFA jurisdiction and vaguely references a pending
mass action.  Conversely, the plaintiffs appeared to contend that
CAFA does not provide original jurisdiction for the plaintiffs to
file directly in federal court and nevertheless, the plaintiffs'
actions are insufficient to join the pending mass action.

Judge Rosenstengel recognized that it is clear that the new
plaintiffs and the original mass action plaintiffs intended for
the claims to fall within the same mass action, however, the
"procedures" utilized by the plaintiffs in the two cases failed to
meet the basic requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  Accordingly, Judge Rosenstengel held that these two
cases have not been joined to the mass action and therefore the
Court continues to lack subject matter jurisdiction.  The two
cases were thus dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Rosenstengel's November 4, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/1wGPGF from Leagle.com.

I. G., Rebecca Jackson, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher J.
Quinn, Driscoll Firm, P.C., John J. Driscoll, Driscoll Firm, P.C.
& William T. Dowd -- bill@dowdlaw.net -- Dowd & Dowd.

Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stefan Mallen
-- samallen@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave, LLP.


ALBUQUERQUE, NM: "McClendon" Intervenors' Bid to Show Cause OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JIMMY (BILLY) McCLENDON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, et al., Defendants, v. E.M., R.L., W.A.,
D.J., P.S., and N.W., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff Intervenors, Case No. 95 CV 24
JAP/KBM (D.N.M.), Judge James A. Parker granted in part and
denied, in part, the plaintiff intervenors' amended motion for an
order to show cause and for further remedial relief regarding City
defendants, The City of Albuquerque and the Mayor of Albuquerque.

The lawsuit began in 1995 as a class action alleging
unconstitutional conditions at the Bernalillo County Detention
Center (BCDC) located in downtown Albuquerque, New Mexico.  At
that time, both the City and Bernalillo County jointly operated
the BCDC.  On August 23, 1995, the Court certified "a class of
persons presently confined in BCDC or who may/will be so confined
in the future," represented by the plaintiffs.

On August 15, 1996, the Court certified "a sub-class of all
persons with mental and/or developmental disabilities who are, or
in the future may be, detained at the [BCDC]," represented by the
plaintiff intervenors.  In November 1996, the plaintiffs and the
plaintiff intervenors entered into two settlement agreements with
both the City defendants and Bernalillo County and its officials
(County defendants).  The Court adopted the settlement agreements
and ordered the defendants to significantly reduce the average
daily population at BCDC.

Despite the efforts of Judge Rebecca Sitterly, pro tem district
judge, the parties, and several non-party stakeholders, the
monthly average population levels at BCDC continued to exceed the
Court-imposed cap.  On June 27, 2001, the Court entered the
Supplemental Order to Enforce Previously Ordered Population Limits
at the BCDC Main Facility (2001 Supplemental Order), which
required the defendants to inter alia "[p]rovide direction to law
enforcement officials under the control of the City and/or the
County to issue citations where appropriate and to use the 'walk
through procedures,' rather than incarcerating individuals, where
appropriate."

The Court also later entered the Stipulated Agreement (2002
Stipulated Order), which required the defendants to "continue to
employ all existing population management tools[.]"

The plaintiff intervenors asked the Court to issue an order to
show cause why the City defendants should not be held in contempt
for failing to comply with the 2001 Supplemental Order and the
2002 Stipulated Order.  The City defendants opposed the motion.

The City defendants contended that the issues litigated in the
lawsuit have focused on conditions of confinement inside of
Bernalillo County jail facilities and that the plaintiff
intervenors are attempting to inappropriately broaden the scope of
the litigation to include "pre-jail intervention."  Since the
relevant provisions of the 2001 Supplemental Order and the 2002
Stipulated Order involve keeping individuals out of custody, the
City defendants implied that the Court lacked jurisdiction to
enter those orders.

Judge Parker disagreed, stating that from its inception, the case
has addressed not only unconstitutional jail overcrowding but also
the causes of overcrowding.

The City defendants also maintained that the Court's August 1997
corrected order approving compromise & settlement agreement and
final judgment of dismissal with prejudice, resolved and dismissed
all claims; therefore, the plaintiff intervenors may not seek
additional remedial relief for violations of federal law.
However, Judge Parker held that this argument ignores the body of
case law that requires individuals to bring within the class
action all requests to rectify constitutional or federal law
violations similar to those alleged in the class action.

The City defendants also argued that when the Bernalillo County
took over full operational control of the Metropolitan Detention
Center (MDC) in July 2006, the County defendants assumed
responsibility to fulfill the requirements of all remedial orders.
The City defendants contended that it is the County defendants'
duty to create an effective jail diversion program for individuals
with mental disabilities, to develop walk through procedures, and
to cite and release non-violent misdemeanants.

Judge Parker, however, pointed out that the City defendants
ignored the fact that they remain parties in this suit and that
they have never moved to vacate or modify the remedial orders to
reflect the City defendants' perceived complete transfer of
responsibility to the County defendants.

The City asked the Court to deny the plaintiff intervenors' Motion
under the doctrine of laches because the plaintiff intervenors
waited over a decade to enforce the 2001 Supplemental Order and
the 2002 Stipulated Order.

Judge Parker found that the plaintiff intervenors have
demonstrated that they have not been in "neglectful repose" during
the last decade and a half.  The judge concluded that the City
defendants have failed to show that the plaintiff intervenors
unreasonably delayed in asserting their rights and that the City
defendants were prejudiced by the passage of time.  Therefore,
Judge Parker held that the plaintiff intervenors are not barred
under the doctrine of laches from seeking enforcement of the
relevant provisions of the 2001 Supplemental Order and the 2002
Stipulated Order.

The City defendants also contended that the plaintiff intervenors
have asked the Court to expand the lawsuit to allow the Court to
monitor the Albuquerque Police Department (APD); and if that
occurs, the Court will interfere with monitoring under a
settlement agreement entered in United States v. City of
Albuquerque, No. 14 CV 01025 RB/SMV (the DOJ case).  According to
the City defendants, the DOJ Settlement Agreement governs
"virtually all interactions with sub class members;" thus, it
would be duplicative and burdensome for the Court to monitor
compliance with the 2001 Supplemental Agreement and the 2002
Stipulated Order.

After examining the DOJ Settlement Agreement, Judge Parker found
that enforcement of the cite and release, walk through procedures,
and jail diversion provisions of the 2001 Supplemental Order and
the 2002 Stipulated Order will not directly interfere with the
City's compliance with the DOJ Settlement Agreement.

The City defendants also contended that the Sitterly Report
demonstrates the City defendants initially complied with two of
the relevant provisions.  The plaintiff intervenors, however,
submitted that the City defendants are currently not in full
compliance with these provisions alleging that APD officers
continue to inappropriately arrest subclass members for citable
offenses and that the City defendants have not continued to use
walk through procedures to avoid incarceration at MDC.

Judge Parker, therefore, ordered the City defendants to show cause
why they should not be held in contempt of the Court's 2001
Supplemental Order and the 2002 Stipulated Order for (1) failing
to consistently direct APD officers to cite and release non-
violent misdemeanants and (2) failing to implement walk through
procedures where appropriate.

In addition, Judge Parker found that the City defendants have not
demonstrated that they have complied with the requirement that
they and the County defendants meet, plan, and implement an
effective jail diversion program for individuals with mental
illness or disabilities.  Therefore, Judge Parker also ordered the
City defendants to show cause why they should not be held in
contempt for failing to comply with these provisions of the
Court's 2001 Supplemental Order and the 2002 Stipulated Order.

In addition, the plaintiff intervenors alleged the City defendants
discriminate against subclass members in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  The plaintiff intervenors'
allegations focused on three specific ADA violations:

     (1)  APD officers' targeting of subclass members and
          unlawfully detaining, searching, and seizing them in
          the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal
          activity;

Judge Parker found that, although it is implied in the DOJ
Settlement Agreement that APD officers will comply with the ADA
and only arrest mentally disabled individuals when they have
engaged in unlawful conduct, the DOJ Settlement Agreement does not
expressly address the plaintiff intervenors' allegation that APD
targets individuals who are mentally ill or disabled without
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in an effort to sweep
them from the streets.  The judge held that, if those allegations
are true, then the Court has the jurisdiction to grant additional
remedial relief in the form of an injunction prohibiting such
targeting.

     (2) APD officers' failure to reasonably accommodate subclass
         members in the course of lawful stops, searches, or
         seizure;

The plaintiff intervenors argued that the City defendants'
maintain policies that have a negative impact on mentally ill or
disabled detainees because the City defendants rely solely on APD
officers for responding to mental health crises.  They argued that
the APD's CIU and COAST groups, who are responsible for
responding, take a law enforcement oriented approach.  The
plaintiff intervenors asserted that under the ADA the City
defendants must redeploy funding away from law enforcement and
incarceration and toward the provision of basic mental health
services, such as a mobile crisis team that consists of trained
mental health professionals and a crisis response facility.

Judge Parker stated that he cannot find applicable case law in
which courts have enforced the ADA to require the use of civilian
mental health professionals instead of specially trained police
officers.  In addition, the judge found that granting this relief
has the potential of interfering with the DOJ Settlement
Agreement, which provides for the continuation of the APD's crisis
intervention teams with additional training for more positive
interactions with mentally ill or disabled individuals.  Thus,
Judge Parker did not order the City defendants to show cause why
they are not violating the ADA by using APD's CIU and COAST groups
to respond to mental health crisis situations.

     (3) APD officers' pattern of discriminatory arrests and
         incarceration of subclass members, which segregate
         subclass members from the community due to their mental
         disabilities.

Judge Parker found that the City defendants and County defendants
may comply with the ADA by developing community-based programs for
subclass members who would benefit from them.  In other words, to
be "effective," those programs must comply with the ADA's
integration mandate.  Consequently, the judge did not order
additional remedial relief addressing the integration mandate at
this time.

In conclusion, Judge Parker ordered that, after the all of the
authorized discovery is completed, the Court will schedule a
hearing at which the City defendants may appear and show cause
whether they are in compliance with the following:

     1. The provision in the 2001 Supplemental Order requiring
        the City defendants to [p]rovide direction to law
        enforcement officials under the control of the City . . .
        to issue citations where appropriate and to use the 'walk
        through procedures,' rather than incarcerating
        individuals, where appropriate.

     2. The provision in the 2001 Supplemental Order requiring
        the City defendants to schedule a meeting or meetings
        concerning the provision of mental health services in
        Bernalillo County. . . . to plan how to implement an
        effective jail diversion program for persons with
        psychiatric or developmental disabilities.

     3. The ADA and the RA with regard to detaining and arresting
        individuals with mental illnesses or developmental
        disabilities to sweep them from the streets.

A full-text copy of Judge Parker's November 9, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/ctuSPd from
Leagle.com.

Peter Sumatkaku, Marc A Gillette, George Chavez, Eliseo Baca,
Clint Barras, Francisco Melendez, Samual Herrod, Vincent Padilla,
Carl Duckworth, Joseph W Anderson, Paul Johnson, Fred Mall, Hector
Lopez, Ricky Rose, Herbert King, Sr, James Parks, Michael A
Johnson, Johnny Vallejos, Joe Newberry, Darryl Craft, Albert
Willy, William P Jimmy, Augustine Tapia, Richard A Smith, Robert
Lovato, Roy Whatley, Marty Begay, Martin Valdivia, Tallie Thomas,
Augustine Jackson, Donald Hall, Carl Sur, Steve Esquibel, Lonnie
Whatley, James Saiz, Bryon Zamora, Allen M Sawyer, Patrick Benny
Romero, Phillip Shumate, Nelson Romero, Steve Johnson, Louie
Chavez, Brian Salazar, Richard Gallegos, Larry Stroud, James
Burks, Brad Fischer, Amihon Baca, Jeff Dillow, Pete McQueen,
Plaintiffs, represented by Mark T. Baker -- mbaker@peiferlaw.com -
- Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law
Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara -- molly@ginlawfirm.com --
GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein, Donatelli,
Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienve, Philip B. Davis, Philip B.
Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A. Ives -- zach@ginlawfirm.com --
GARCIA IVES NOWARA.

Bennie F Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Mark T. Baker, Peifer
Hanson and Mullins, Mark H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary
(Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara, GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg,
Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienve,
Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law, Zachary A.
Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA & Kirtan K. Khalsa, Khalsa Law Office.

EM, RL, Intervenor Plaintiffs, represented by Claire Dickson,
David Meilleur, Law Offices of Nancy L. Simmons, Mary (Molly) E.
Schmidt-Nowara, GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Nancy L. Simmons, Law Offices
of Nancy L Simmons PC, Peter Cubra, Law Office of Peter Cubra,
Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Kelly K.
Waterfall, Law Offices of Peter Cubra.

WA, DJ, PS, Intervenor Plaintiffs, represented by Claire Dickson,
David Meilleur, Law Offices of Nancy L. Simmons, Mark H.
Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara,
GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Nancy L. Simmons, Law Offices of Nancy L
Simmons PC, Peter Cubra, Law Office of Peter Cubra, Philip B.
Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Kelly K. Waterfall, Law
Offices of Peter Cubra.

NW, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by David Meilleur, Law
Offices of Nancy L. Simmons, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara,
GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Nancy L. Simmons, Law Offices of Nancy L
Simmons PC, Peter Cubra, Law Office of Peter Cubra, Philip B.
Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Kelly K. Waterfall, Law
Offices of Peter Cubra.

City of Albuquerque, Defendant, represented by Debra J. Moulton,
Kennedy, Moulton & Wells PC, Jeffrey L. Baker, The Baker Law Firm
& Kathryn Levy, City of Albuquerque Legal Department.

Martin Chavez, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey L. Baker, The
Baker Law Firm & Kathryn Levy, City of Albuquerque Legal
Department.

County of Bernalillo, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey L. Baker,
The Baker Law Firm & Marcus J. Rael, Jr., Robles, Rael & Anaya,
PC.

Alan C. Torgerson, Miscellaneous, represented by Alan C.
Torgerson.

Michael Sisneros, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey L. Baker, The
Baker Law Firm.

Bernalillo County Board of Commissioners, Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey L. Baker, The Baker Law Firm, Luis E. Robles --
luis@roblesrael.com --  Robles, Rael & Anaya, P.C. & Marcus J.
Rael, Jr. -- marcus@roblesrael.com -- Robles, Rael & Anaya, PC.


ALERE INC: Faces "Khalid" Suit Over Disclosures Related to Arriva
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HALAL KHALID, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff, vs. ALERE INC., NAMAL NAWANA, JAMES F. HINRICHS,
JONATHAN WYGANT, RON ZWANZIGER, AND DAVID TEITEL, Defendants, Case
No. 0:16-cv-62687-BB (S.D. Fla., November 14, 2016), is a
securities suit over the Company's disclosures in its Form 10-K,
particularly Medicare reimbursements with respect to Arriva
Medical LLC's products.

ALERE INC. provides professional diagnostic products and services
for infectious and cardiometabolic disease, and toxicology in the
United States, Europe, and internationally.  Arriva Medical LLC is
the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10116
     Phone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


ALLY FINANCIAL: M.D. Pa. Class Certification Rules Suspended
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAYLA JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-1100 (M.D. Pa.), Chief
District Judge Christopher C. Conner granted the Plaintiff's
motion to suspend the 90-day class certification provision of the
Local Rules of Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The Court concluded that discovery is essential in deciding the
Plaintiff's class allegations and that Plaintiff has accordingly
demonstrated good cause for suspending the 90-day determination
period.

The Court further ordered the parties to propose a new class
determination motion deadline in their joint case management plan.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 7, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/18E8XI from Leagle.com.

Jayla Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur Stock --
astock@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice.

Jayla Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Shanon J. Carson --
scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Jarrett L. Ellzey,
Hughes Ellzey, LLP, pro hac vice, Lane L. Vines -- lvines@bm.net -
- Berger & Montague, PC, pro hac vice & W. Craft Hughes, Hughes
Ellzey, LLP.

Ally Financial Inc., Defendant, represented by Divya S. Gupta --
gupta.divya@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, pro hac vice, Eric
J. Troutman -- troutman.eric@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
pro hac vice, Scott D. Goldsmith -- goldsmith.scott@dorsey.com --
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, pro hac vice, John F. Yaninek --
jyaninek@tthlaw.com -- Thomas Thomas & Hafer LLP & Matthew
Clayberger -- mclayberger@tthlaw.com -- Thomas, Thomas & Hafer,
LLP.


AMERIFINANCIAL: Faces "Nappi" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against AmeriFinancial
Solutions, LLC.

The case is captioned Donald Nappi, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. AmeriFinancial Solutions, LLC, Case
No. 0:16-cv-62692-KMM (S.D. Fla., November 15, 2016).

AmeriFinancial Solutions, LLC owns and operates a debt collection
firm in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Patrick Healy, Esq.
      ATTORNEY AT LAW
      2846-B Remington Green Circle
      Tallahassee, FL 32308
      Telephone: (850) 222-5400
      Facsimile: 222-7339
      E-mail: dhealy@davidhealylaw.com


APPLE INC: Sued Over Depriving Customer of Paid Warranty Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MITCH KALCHEIM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC; and Does 1-100, the
Defendant, Case No. BC640958 (Cal. Super. Ct, Nov. 17, 2016),
seeks injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution
and/or disgorgement, compensatory and additional statutory damages
as a result of Apple's conduct depriving customer's paid warranty
coverage.

According to the complaint, if a consumer buys an Apple Hardware
product that is backordered or needs to be delivered and AppleCare
at the same time, Apple will begin the AppleCare warranty days or
weeks before the consumer receives the underlying Hardware Product
that is covered by the warranty. This conduct by Apple deprives
the customer of days or weeks of warranty coverage which he paid
for.

Apple is a technology company selling a range of technical
hardware products such as the iPhone, iPad, iWatch, Macbook and
Macbook Pro ("Hardware Products").

Mitch Kalcheim is represented by:

          Perry C. Wander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PERRY C. WANDER
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse Suite
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 274 9985
          Facsimile: (310) 274 9987
          E-mail: pcwlaw@msn.com


ARIZONA: Patients & Caregivers File Suit Over Marijuana Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Gannon, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
patients and caregivers claim in a class-action lawsuit in Phoenix
that Arizona has been hoarding a $15 million surplus from its own
medical marijuana program to limit access to the drug.

In a complaint filed on November 11, in Maricopa County Superior
Court, a group of patients and caregivers accused the Arizona
Department of Health Services of charging unreasonable fees to
obtain and maintain a medical marijuana card, and then failing to
reroute the money back into the program.

"The state currently collects $75-$200 per patient/caregiver, but
the current estimated costs incurred by the state for patent and
caregiver provisions of the program are believed to be less than
approximately $15," the complaint states.

Lead plaintiffs Yolanda Daniels and Lisa Becker claim the medical
marijuana program's surplus for 2015 was $2.64 million, more than
21 percent above that year's expenses.

Arizona passed the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, or AMMA, in
2010, legalizing the use of cannabis for the treatment of
debilitating conditions like cancer, HIV, and multiple sclerosis.

"By Arizona's Constitution, no politician, not even the governor
or legislators, nor any other government official, may impair this
law," according to the lawsuit.

But the class claims the excessive charges are a direct result of
the state's desire to limit access to medical marijuana. The
complaint alleges former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who first signed
the act into law, immediately set the patient and caregiver
medical-card prices "high enough to keep needy patients and
caregivers from receiving legal access to the medical marijuana
program."

Since, current Gov. Doug Ducey, who is named as a defendant, has
"maintained the same policy against the AMMA," the complaint
states.

The costs for medical marijuana accumulate quickly. According to a
2015 Forbes study, Arizona's per-ounce price for marijuana is
higher than most of the western states at $298 an ounce - compared
to $242 in California, and $265 in Nevada.

On top of paying for the actual marijuana, patients and caregivers
say they have to pay the annual registration fee without help from
insurance. The lowest registration fee for those qualified for
food stamps is still $75 per year.

According to the complaint, the hefty fees helped Arizona
accumulate the $15 million surplus that, legally, has to be spent
on the medical marijuana program. Instead, the plaintiffs say, the
money remains mostly untouched.

"The excess fund will only grow, as the state continues to compel
the yearly excessive fees for patients and caregivers," the
lawsuit states. "A state regulatory fee is unconstitutional if it
is not in reasonable proportion to the services rendered."

Daniels and Becker say their grievances boil down to a trying,
exhaustive process for patients and caregivers, who have had to
reach out for court intervention to "compel the state to follow
the law" in the past.

The proposed class of medical marijuana patients and caregivers is
represented by Sean Berberian of White Berberian in Tempe, Ariz.
Berberian did not respond to a request for comment.

The Arizona Department of Health Services also did not respond on
November 9, to a request for comment.

Arizona remains an exclusively medical state when it comes to
marijuana use, as voters narrowly rejected a recreational
marijuana initiative November 8 night. Proposition 205 lost 47
percent to 52 percent.


AUTO FRANK: "Collins" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND COLLINS JR., on behalf of himself individually, and ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. AUTO FRANK, Defendant,
Case No. 4:16-cv-03350 (S.D. Tex., November 14, 2016), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid overtime wages brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked as a "Mechanic Helper" and "Porter" for
Defendant and his job duties included assisting mechanics with the
repair of vehicles, performing mechanic work on vehicles, washing
vehicles and providing customer service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
     THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
     3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
     Houston, TX 77054
     Phone: (832) 778-8182
     Fax: (832) 778-8353
     E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
N. PANTELYAT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08964-AJN
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2016), seeks to end Bank of America's
unauthorized, unfair, and unlawful practice of assessing overdraft
fees for "nonrecurring" debit card transactions that have been
misclassified as "recurring" debit card transactions.

Bank of America allegedly promises its account holders that it
"do[es] not authorize overdrafts for everyday non-recurring debit
card transactions and ATM transactions" and "do[es] not charge you
an Overdraft Item fee on an everyday non-recurring debit card
transaction". However, with respect to recurring debit card
transactions, Bank of America promises its account holders that it
will authorize overdrafts and charge a corresponding overdraft
fee: "We do charge you an Overdraft Item fee each time we
authorize and pay any other type of overdraft transaction [besides
non-recurring transactions]. These other types of transactions
include checks and other transactions made using your checking
account number, recurring debit card transactions, Online and
automatic bill payments, and ACH transactions".

Bank of America is an American multinational banking and financial
services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
It is the second largest bank holding company in the United States
by assets. As of 2016, Bank of America is the 26th largest company
in the United States by total revenue. In 2016, Forbes listed Bank
of America as the eleventh largest company in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          Vanessa Shakib, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          45 Main Street, Suite 230
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: 917 336 0171
          Facsimile: 917 336 0177
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com
                  vshakib@ahdootwolfson.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Preying on Prisoners, Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
people released from Arizona prisons say in a federal class action
in Phoenix that they are "forced" to become Bank of America
customers by being given a BofA debit card, then charged
"exorbitant and unusual fees" to withdraw their own money -- $15
for each transaction with a teller.

Lead plaintiff Daria Brill says Bank of America preys upon "one of
the most vulnerable groups imaginable -- releasees from Arizona
corrections facilities."

"If these individuals want their own money after they are released
from prison, they are forced to accept a 'consumer relationship'
with BofA," Brill and two other named plaintiffs say in the Nov. 3
complaint.

And it's a monopoly: "BofA is the exclusive provider of debit
cards issued to Arizona inmates upon their release from an Arizona
corrections facility."

Inmates may earn small amounts of money through prison work
programs or get it from family or friends. The money is kept in a
custodial account until the inmate is released from prison.

In Arizona, all prisoners who are released must accept their money
on a Bank of America CashPay Debit Card.  The Arizona Department
of Corrections releases 19,000 inmates per year.  Brill et al. say
they are not provided any information on fees associated with the
account.

"They get charged a fee just to walk up to a teller to find out
how much money they have in their accounts," their attorney
Richard Golomb said in an interview.

"The fees are based on a debit card contract that they never
agreed to and never signed."

They are charged $15 fee transaction at a bank teller window, and
a $2.50 fee to speak with a customer service representative over
the phone, according to the lawsuit.  To withdraw money from the
account costs $1.50 per withdrawal, even if performed at a Bank of
America ATM.  The plaintiffs say they are supposed to receive a
fee schedule on the activation instruction sheet for the debit
card, but did not.

A spokesman for Bank of America said it had no comment.

Brill et al. seek class certification, restitution, rescission and
reformation of contracts, and compensatory and punitive damages
for fraud, conversion and unjust enrichment.

Attorney Golomb -- rgolomb@golombhonik.com -- is with Golomb &
Honik of Philadelphia. Local counsel for the class is Jo Ann Niemi
with Anapol Weiss, of Scottsdale.

A similar class action was filed on November 8, in Nevada, against
the Washoe County Sheriff's Office. Lead plaintiff Justin Carl
Luckett claims the sheriff's office returns money to prisoners who
were arrested carrying more than $40 in cash on a Numi Prestige
Prepaid MasterCard.  Numi has no bank branches or ATMs in Nevada,
and other banks charge $3 per ATM transaction, with a limit of
$300 per day, according to the complaint.   Luckett claims the
issuer of these debit cards makes "millions of dollars each year"
from fees and forfeitures from prisoners released by Washoe
County.  Neither Numi nor MasterCard are parties to the complaint;
only the sheriff's office and the sheriff are.

Luckett seeks class certification, restitution, and punitive
damages for unconstitutional takings, denial of equal protection
and other civil rights charges. He is represented by Mark Thierman
with Thierman Buck in Reno.


BAYCARE HEALTH: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, "Bernard" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA BERNARD and SELENA COBB, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BAYCARE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., d/b/a
JOHN KNOX VILLAGE OF TAMPA BAY, Case No. 8:16-cv-03166-SCB-TGW
(Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., November 14, 2016), alleges
that the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs the required
overtime pay was intentional and willful, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Baycare is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation engaged in
substantial and not isolated business activities within
Hillsborough County, Florida.  The Plaintiffs worked for the
Defendant as Certified Nursing Assistants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
          Lindsey C. Kofoed, Esq.
          Robin M. Orosz, Esq.
          FLORIN ROEBIG, P.A.
          777 Alderman Road
          Palm Harbor, FL 34683
          Telephone: (727) 786-5000
          Facsimile: (727) 772-9833
          E-mail: WMF@florinroebig.com
                  CDG@florinroebig.com
                  lck@florinroebig.com
                  rorosz@florinroebig.com


BF LABS: Court Allows Alexander to Amend Motion to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kathryn H. Vratil sustained in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration, or in the alternative, motion for
leave to amend filed in the lawsuit styled KYLE ALEXANDER and
DYLAN SYMINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated v. BF LABS INC., d/b/a BUTTERFLY LABS, SONNY C. VLEISIDES
and JEFF OWNBY, Case No. 14-2159-KHV (D. Kan.).  The Plaintiffs
may file an amended motion to certify a class.

Kyle Alexander and Dylan Symington bring this putative class
action on behalf of all persons, who prepaid BF Labs for bitcoin
mining machines between September 3, 2012, and July 17, 2014.
They assert claims against BF Labs, Sonny C. Vleisides and Jeff
Ownby under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act.  They also bring
unjust enrichment claims under Kansas common law.  In addition,
against BF Labs, the Plaintiffs assert a common law claim of
conversion.

On September 22, 2016, the Court overruled the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of settlement.  On September 30, 2016,
based on the memorandum and order, which denied approval of the
settlement, the Court overruled the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as moot.  This matter comes before the Court on the
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, or in the alternative,
motion for leave to amend.

According to Judge Vratil's memorandum and order, the Court
overruled the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification based on
the reasoning set out in the memorandum and order denying approval
of the settlement.  The Court agrees that the term "moot" was
inartful.  The Court need not address the merits of Plaintiffs'
motion to reconsider, however, because the Court sustains the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended motion for class
certification.

In their amended motion, the Plaintiffs must address (among other
things) the obvious disconnect between the class, which the
amended complaint seeks to certify and the class, which the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify seeks to establish, Judge Vratil
said.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/ywt86W from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Kyle Alexander and Dylan Symington are represented by:

          Aristotle N. Rodopoulos, Esq.
          Noah K. Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          1100 Main, Suite #1800
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 256-3582
          Facsimile: (816) 337-4243
          E-mail: ari@woodlaw.com
                  noah@woodlaw.com

Defendants BF Labs Inc., Sonny Chris Vleisides and Jeff Ownby are
represented by:

          Mark A. Olthoff, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900
          Kansas City, MO 64112-1895
          Telephone: (816) 753-1000
          Facsimile: (816) 753-1536
          E-mail: molthoff@polsinelli.com

Defendant BF Labs Inc. is represented by:

          Michael S. Foster, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900
          Kansas City, MO 64112-1895
          Telephone: (816) 753-1000
          Facsimile: (816) 753-1536
          E-mail: mfoster@polsinelli.com

Receiver Eric L. Johnson is represented by:

          Bryant T. Lamer, Esq.
          Kersten L. Holzhueter, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 474-8100
          Facsimile: (816) 474-3216
          E-mail: blamer@spencerfane.com
                  kholzhueter@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          Lucinda Housley Luetkemeyer, Esq.
          GRAVES GARRETT LLC
          1100 Main St., Suite 2700
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 285-3880
          E-mail: lluetkemeyer@gravesgarrett.com

Movant Netsolus.com, Inc., is represented by:

          Ashley Scott Waddell, Esq.
          WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
          2600 Grand, Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 399-5510
          Facsimile: (816) 221-2508
          E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: "Hennington" Suit Alleges RICO Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCES PEEL HENNINGTON, Plaintiff v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION, EMAI PLASTIC RAW MATERIAL CO, LTD., PROXY BIOMEDICAL
LIMITED, LUXILON INDUSTRIES NV, SHENZHEN YFL INTERNATIONAL
LOGISTICS LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06321 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 14, 2016), was filed on behalf of a purported class of
similarly situated entities and individuals who were implanted
with BSC transvaginal mesh products after January, 2012.  The suit
alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION -- http://www.bostonscientific.com/
-- is a developer, manufacturer and marketer of medical devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Steve Mostyn, Esq.
     Mark C. Sparks, Esq.
     MOSTYN LAW FIRM
     3810 West Alabama Street
     Houston, TX 77027
     Phone: (713) 861-6616
     Fax: (713) 861-8084

        - and -

     Shawn J. Wallach, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN J.WALLACH
     52 Duane St, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: (646) 848-5400
     E-mail: Wallach.shawn@gmail.com


BOYD BILOXI: Class Settlement in "Bennett" Suit Gets Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BOYD BILOXI, LLC d/b/a IP Casino
Resort and Spa, Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-00330-WS-M (S.D.
Ala.), Chief District Judge William H. Steele granted the parties'
Amended Settlement Agreement.

On October 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
against Boyd Biloxi, LLC d/b/a IP Casino Resort and Spa (Boyd
Biloxi) alleging that calls it made offering Plaintiff and his
putative class free tickets to concerts or other special
promotions violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227 (TCPA), as the call recipients had not given prior
express written consent to Defendant to make such calls.

For purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement Class refers all
persons who, since October 16, 2013 through May 11, 2016 received
a telephone call to a residential or cellular telephone number
initiated by, on behalf of or at the direction of Boyd Biloxi
which used an artificial and/or pre-recorded voice message or was
placed by an automatic telephone dialing system.

The Court appointed Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Ken Riemer and John
Cox as Class Counsels. Boyd Biloxi agrees it will not interpose
objection to any fee request submitted by Class Counsel to the
Court in an amount up to a maximum of $2,000,000, plus costs up to
a maximum of $7,500. Boyd Biloxi will pay any amount awarded by
the Court for Class Counsel's fees and costs (up to $2,007,500.00)
within 30 days after the Effective Date, provided it has received
W-9 forms for each firm comprising Class Counsel and reasonable
payment instructions by the Effective Date.

The Court appointed Bennett as Class Representative. Boyd Biloxi
agrees it will not interpose objection to any request to the Court
to award the Class Representative a service award, in an amount up
to $3,500. Boyd Biloxi will pay any service award approved by the
Court within 30 days after the Effective Date, provided it has
received a current W-9 form for the Class Representative and
reasonable payment instructions from Class Counsel by the
Effective Date.

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on or after 28 days
of the Objection Deadline or such other time as the Court shall
set and approve the settlement. The Objection Deadline will
commence 45 days from the Settlement Notice Date, the date within
30 days after the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the
Court.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 8, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/8cBCP0 from Leagle.com.

Jason Bennett, Plaintiff, represented by Earl P. Underwood, Jr..

Jason Bennett, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Cox & Kenneth J.
Riemer.

Boyd Biloxi, LLC, Defendant, represented by Laura F. Ashley --
lashley@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, LLP, pro hac vice &
Matthew C. McDonald -- mmcdonald@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker
LLP.


BUD ANTLE: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL LOPEZ on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. BUD ANTLE, INC., a California corporation;
DOLE FRESH VEGETABLES, INC., a California COMPANY, INC., a
California corporation; DOLE, a business entity unknown; and DOES
1-100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC640909 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Nov. 17, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages at applicable
minimum wage or overtime rate for time which Defendants failed to
pay any wages when automatically deducting meal periods; wages for
workdays Defendants failed to provide second meal periods; unpaid
vacation wages; statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate and complete wage statements; waiting time penalties in
the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay former
employees all earned and unpaid wages; applicable civil penalties;
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees pursuant to Labor Code, costs, and interest.

According to the complaint, despite that California law requires
employers to pay all non-exempt employee wages, at the applicable
rate, for all "hours worked"; Defendants had a policy and
procedure of automatically deducting 30 minutes for meal periods
from each employee's daily hours worked regardless of whether the
employee received a meal period or took a shorter meal period than
30 minutes. This would result in Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees having thirty minutes deducted from their daily hours
even though they were working and received less than a thirty
minute meal period. This resulted in Defendant failing to pay
wages for this work time at least at a minimum wage rate or
overtime, to the extent the time qualified as overtime, for the
improperly deducted time which Plaintiff and the employees were
working and not on a meal break.

The Defendants allegedly violated Labor Code sections 1194 and
1197 by failing to provide a legal minimum wage and/or overtime
for all time Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
worked and/or were under control of Defendants. The Defendants
allegedly violated Labor Code sections 510 and 1194 to the extent
the unpaid time occurred during periods the employee had already
worked eight hours in a day, forty hours in a week, and/or on a
seventh consecutive day in a workweek.

Bud Antle produces and markets vegetables such lettuce. The
company is based in Monterey, California. The Company operates as
a subsidiary of Dole Food Company Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609 0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


CALIFORNIA: "Calloway" Suit v. Prison Staff Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Stanley A. Boone dismissed the plaintiff's third amended
complaint in the case captioned JAMISI J. CALLOWAY, Plaintiff, v.
DR. AKANNO, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-00747-SAB-PC
(E.D. Cal.).

The action was initiated by a civil complaint filed by Jamisi J.
Calloway, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
currently in the custody of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the California Health
Care Facility at Stockton.

In his third amended complaint, Calloway named 33 individual
defendants, including Dr. Akanno, that are employed by the CDCR at
Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) and at other institutions within
the CDCR.  Calloway is a chronic care high risk inmate who is
receiving hemodialysis and renal treatment.  Calloway alleged
violations of his constitutional rights in violation of section
1983 and Title II of the American's With Disabilities Act (ADA).

Judge Boone, however, found that Calloway's complaint fails to
state a cognizable claim for relief against any named defendant.
The judge provided Calloway with the legal standards that appear
to apply to the claims raised in the third amended complaint and
allowed Calloway one final opportunity to file an amended
complaint to cure its deficiences.

Accordingly, Judge Boone ordered that:

     1. Calloway's third amended complaint is dismissed for
        failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
        granted;

     2. Calloway's claims for retaliation in violation of the
        First Amendment and failure to protect in violation of
        the Eighth Amendment are dismissed without leave to
        amend;

     3. Calloway shall file a fourth amended complaint within 30
        days from the date of service of the order; and

     4. If Calloway fails to file a fourth amended complaint in
        compliance with the order, the action will be dismissed
        for failure to state a claim.

A full-text copy of Judge Boone's November 7, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/QAdBFE from Leagle.com.


CENTENE CORP: Faces "Sanchez" Securities Class Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL SANCHEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTENE CORP., MICHAEL F.
NEIDORFF, and JEFFREY A. SCHWANEKE, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
08469 (C.D. Cal., November 14, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act by incorrectly
accounting for underperforming health plans of Health Net, Inc.,
which it acquired in March 2016.

Centene Corp. provides health plans in over twenty states through
Medicaid, Medicare, and the Health Insurance Marketplace.

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: rprongay@glancylaw.com


CERTIFIED EMS INC: Misclassifies Workers, "Mendoza" Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARACELI MENDOZA v. CERTIFIED EMS, INC., dba CPNS STAFFING and dba
CPNS RESOURCES, and GASAT SERRANO, INDIVIDUALLY, and GODSON
UCHENNA KANU aka UCHE KANU, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 4:16-cv-03353
(S.D. Tex., November 14, 2016), alleges that CPNS misclassifies
its healthcare professionals, including the Plaintiff, as contract
employees.

Ms. Mendoza, a licensed vocational nurse, brings the action to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees owed to her as an individual and to other similarly situated
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Certified EMS, Inc., doing business as CPNS Staffing and CPNS
Resources, is a medical staffing agency that provides registered
nurses, licensed vocational nurses, certified nursing associates,
and psych techs ("Healthcare Professionals") to its clients.
Gasat Serrano is the Director of Sales and Marketing and
supervises CPNS Healthcare Professionals.  Godson Uchenna Kanu,
also known as Uche Kanu, is the president and a director of CPNS.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Siurek, Esq.
          Patricia Haylon, Esq.
          WARREN & SIUREK, L.L.P.
          3334 Richmond, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 522-0066
          Facsimile: (713) 522-9977
          E-mail: msiurek@warrensiurek.com
                  thaylon@warrensiurek.com


CHAMPION SECURITY: "Davis" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
EARL DAVIS JR., on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED Plaintiffs, v. RICKY LEE FLAKES, individually
and D/B/A CHAMPION SECURITY AGENCY, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-
03348 (S.D. Tex., November 14, 2016), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked as a "Security Guard" for Defendant and his job
duties included patrolling property, drafting reports related to
security details, and functioning as a private patrol officer to
secure the safety of individuals and their property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
     THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
     3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
     Houston, TX 77054
     Phone: (832) 778-8182
     Fax: (832) 778-8353
     E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION: Appeal of Case Dismissal Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Channeladvisor 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 an appeal is
pending related to the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In January 2015, two purported class action
complaints were filed alleging violations of the federal
securities laws against a group of defendants including us and
certain of our current executive officers. The consolidated case
was dismissed April 6, 2016, and on April 29, 2016, the plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit."

"This case and additional litigation, if instituted against us,
could cause us to incur substantial costs and divert management's
attention and resources from our business."

ChannelAdvisor is a provider of software-as-a-service, or SaaS,
solutions that allow retailers and branded manufacturers to
integrate, manage and monitor their merchandise sales across
hundreds of online channels. The Company is headquartered in
Morrisville, North Carolina and has international offices in
England, Ireland, Germany, Australia, Brazil and China.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Final Deal Approval Hearing in March 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, 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 a hearing
to consider final approval of the settlement of a merger class
action lawsuit is set for March 2017.

On May 18, 2016, Charter Communications, Inc. (formerly known as
CCH I, LLC, the "Company" or "Charter") completed its previously
reported merger transactions among Charter, Time Warner Cable Inc.
("Legacy TWC"), Charter Communications, Inc. ("Legacy Charter"),
and certain other subsidiaries of Charter (the "TWC Transaction").
Also on May 18, 2016, Charter completed its previously reported
acquisition of Bright House Networks, LLC ("Legacy Bright House")
from Advance/Newhouse Partnership (the "Bright House Transaction,"
and, together with the TWC Transaction, the "Transactions"). As a
result of the Transactions, Charter became the new public parent
company that holds the combined operations of Legacy Charter,
Legacy TWC and Legacy Bright House and was renamed Charter
Communications, Inc.

In 2014, following an announcement by Comcast and Legacy TWC of
their intent to merge, Breffni Barrett and others filed suit in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New
York against Comcast, Legacy TWC and their respective officers and
directors.  Later five similar class actions were consolidated
with this matter (the "NY Actions"). The NY Actions were settled
in July 2014, however, such settlement was terminated following
the termination of the Comcast and TWC merger in April 2015.  In
May 2015, Charter and TWC announced their intent to merge.
Subsequently, the parties in the NY Actions filed a Second
Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint"), removing Comcast as a defendant and naming TWC, the
members of the TWC board of directors, Charter and the merger
subsidiaries as defendants. The Second Amended Complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that the members of the TWC board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders
during the Charter merger negotiations and by entering into the
merger agreement and approving the mergers, and that Charter aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint
sought, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the
stockholder vote on the mergers, unspecified declaratory and
equitable relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
and costs and attorneys' fees.

In September 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") to settle the action. Pursuant to the MOU,
the defendants issued certain supplemental disclosures relating to
the mergers on a Form 8-K, and plaintiffs agreed to release with
prejudice all claims that could have been asserted against
defendants in connection with the mergers.

The settlement is conditioned on, among other things, approval by
the New York Supreme Court. That court gave preliminary approval
to the settlement in October 2016. A hearing to consider final
approval of this settlement is set for March 2017. In the event
that the New York Supreme Court does not approve the settlement,
the defendants intend to vigorously defend against any further
litigation.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Nix "Sciabacucchi" Case Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, 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 Charter's
motion to dismiss the Matthew Sciabacucchi litigation remains
pending.

In August 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter, Matthew
Sciabacucchi, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
on behalf of a putative class of Charter stockholders, challenging
the transactions between Charter, TWC, A/N, and Liberty Broadband
announced by Charter on May 26, 2015 (collectively, the
"Transactions"). The lawsuit names as defendants Liberty
Broadband, Charter, the board of directors of Charter, and New
Charter. Plaintiff alleged that the Transactions improperly
benefit Liberty Broadband at the expense of other Charter
shareholders, and that Charter issued a false and misleading proxy
statement in connection with the Transactions.  Plaintiff
requested, among other things, that the Delaware Court of Chancery
enjoin the September 21, 2015 special meeting of Charter
stockholders at which Charter stockholders were asked to vote on
the Transactions until the defendants disclosed certain
information relating to Charter and the Transactions. The
disclosures demanded by the plaintiff included (i) certain
unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and (ii) a Form
of Proxy and Right of First Refusal Agreement ("Proxy") by and
among Liberty Broadband, A/N, Charter and New Charter, which was
referenced in the description of the Second Amended and Restated
Stockholders Agreement, dated May 23, 2015, among Charter, New
Charter, Liberty Broadband and A/N.

On September 9, 2015, Charter issued supplemental disclosures
containing unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter. In
return, the plaintiff agreed its disclosure claims were moot and
withdrew its application to enjoin the Charter stockholder vote on
the Transactions.

Charter has filed a motion to dismiss this litigation but the
court has not yet ruled upon it. Charter denies any liability,
believes that it has substantial defenses, and intends to
vigorously defend this suit.


CHEMTURA CORPORATION: Sued Over Merger Agreement with Lanxess
-------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Scarantino, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEMTURA CORPORATION, CRAIG
A. ROGERSON, JEFFREY D. BENJAMIN, TIMOTHY J. BERNLOHR, ANNA C.
CATALANO, JAMES W. CROWNOVER, ROBERT A. DOVER, JONATHAN F. FOSTER,
JOHN K.L WULFF, LANXESS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, and LANXESS ADDITIVES
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06051-ER (E.D. Penn., Nov.
17, 2016), seeks judgment against Defendants
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with its Proxy Statement.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
September 26, 2016, pursuant to which Chemtura Corporation will be
acquired by Lanxess Deutschland GmbH and Lanxess Additives Inc. On
September 25, 2016, Chemtura's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger. Pursuant to
the terms of merger agreement, shareholders of Chemtura will
receive $33.50 per share of cash. On November 4, 2016, Defendants
filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the proposed
transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material information with
respect to the proposed transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Proxy Statement.

Chemtura Corporation is a global corporation headquartered in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with its other principal executive
office in Middlebury, Connecticut. The company focuses on
specialty chemicals for various industrial sectors, and these are
transportation (including automotive), energy, and electronics.
Chemtura operates manufacturing plants in 11 countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Rd., Ste. 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 588 5516
          Facsimile: (484) 450 2582
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


CHEVRON U.S.A.: Court Narrows Claims in Royalties Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THELMA JEAN LAMBERT LIVING TRUST, by its
trustees Thelma Jean Lambert and Duane Lambert, on behalf of
itself, and CRIEG RITTENHOUSE and BERNITA RITTENHOUSE on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.; FOUR STAR OIL & GAS COMPANY; CHEVRON TEXACO
EXPLORATION PRODUCTION INC.; (including predecessors and
successors), Defendants, Case No. 14-1220-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan.), Judge
Julie A. Robinson:

     -- denied the motion filed by the Thelma Jean Lambert Living
        Trust (the "Trust") to strike most of the declaration of
        Alan Bates as improper opinion and conclusory testimony;
        and

     -- granted in part and denied, in part, the defendants'
        motion for summary judgment as to the Trust.

The Trust and Crieg and Bernita Rittenhouse brought the lawsuit to
recover underpaid royalties due on wells operated by the
defendants Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Chevron Texaco Exploration
Production, Inc., and Four Star Oil & Gas Company (collectively
"Chevron").  The Trust is a royalty owner of two natural gas
wells, Evenson #1 and #2, in Seward County, Kansas, operated by
Chevron.  Crieg and Bernita Rittenhouse are royalty owners of
wells operated by Chevron in Texas County, Oklahoma.  They brought
claims individually and on behalf of a putative class of royalty
owners in Chevron-operated wells in Kansas and Oklahoma from
December 23, 2009 to the present.  The Trust sought only to
represent the Kansas portion of the class and the Rittenhouses
sought only to represent the Oklahoma portion of the class.

The plaintiffs alleged that Chevron underpaid royalty owners by
taking numerous volumetric and fee-based deductions before the gas
products were in marketable condition that were not revealed on
the royalty owners' check stubs.  The plaintiffs alleged that
Chevron paid royalty on the net, not gross, gas contract value, in
breach of the marketable condition rule.  The plaintiffs
maintained that Chevron breached an implied covenant to place the
gas and its constituent parts in "marketable condition" at
Chevron's exclusive cost, and that Chevron breached the implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing by entering into gas purchase
agreements with third-party purchaser ONEOK on paper only, thereby
hiding the midstream processing costs that were passed on to the
royalty owners.  Part of the Trust's claim is that Chevron
improperly deducted the Kansas Conservation Fee, which the Kansas
Supreme Court has held may not be shared with royalty owners.

On October 28, 2015, before the plaintiffs had filed their motion
for class certification, Chevron moved for summary judgment based
on a July 2, 2015 Kansas Supreme Court decision, Fawcett v. Oil
Producers, Inc. of Kansas.  That case squarely addressed the
marketable condition rule as it applies to third-party purchase
agreements similar to those Chevron entered into.

Judge Robinson agreed with Chevron that the Fawcett decision
controls disposition of the Kansas claims.  The Trust attempted to
avoid the result of Fawcett by repackaging its implied duty of
marketability argument as a breach of the duty of good faith and
fair dealing, but the judge held that Fawcett addresses the issues
raised by the Trust, regardless of the label.

"The lease language is virtually identical.  As in Fawcett, the
gas here was sold and marketed at the well and the quality of the
gas does not dictate a finding that the gas was not in a
marketable condition.  Therefore, in order to satisfy the
marketable condition rule and allow for midstream costs to be
shared with the royalty owners, the gas was required to be
acceptable to ONEOK, the third-party purchaser, at the time of
delivery, and the third-party purchase agreements must have been
good faith transactions.  Chevron satisfied its summary judgment
burden of showing an absence of evidence that the gas was either
not acceptable to ONEOK, or that the four third-party purchase
agreements were not good faith transactions.  The Trust has not
come forward with specific evidence to show that these particular
transactions do not meet the standards set forth in Fawcett, and
this Court declines to make a generalized finding that the sales
arrangements at issue in this case, which were also at issue in
Fawcett, constitute sham sales designed to circumvent the
marketable condition rule," said Judge Robinson.

Moreover, Judge Robinson found that the Trust has not come forward
with evidence that Chevron breached the duty of good faith and
fair dealing implied in the lease.  The judge noted that the Trust
has failed to point to an existing provision in the lease that
required Chevron to pay royalty on proceeds minus post-sale
expenses incurred by third party purchasers to add further value
to the gas before it entered the interstate pipeline.  Moreover,
the judge found that there is no specific evidence in the record
about the third-party transactions in the case that suggests
Chevron breached the good faith and fair dealing duty it owed the
Trust when they were executed.

Judge Robinson thus granted summary judgment in favor of Chevron
on the marketable condition rule claim.

Judge Robinson, however, found that the conservation fee claim is
not moot, because Chevron failed to provide notice to the Trust
and putative class members that its payments of the conservation
fees charged between 2009 and 2012, plus interest, were credited
on royalty payments.  As such, the judge denied summary judgment
on this component of the breach of lease claim.

The Trust moved to strike the declaration of Alan Bates that was
attached to Chevron's reply memorandum as inadmissible expert
opinion testimony.  But Judge Robinson overruled and denied the
motion because Bates is not being offered as an expert.  Bates was
offering lay opinion testimony that meets the standards set forth
in Fed. R. Evid. 701.

To the extent the Trust argued for the first time in the reply
that its motion to exclude is based on the failure to timely
disclose Bates as a lay witnesses, Judge Robinson denied the
motion as well, finding that the Trust has clearly been on notice
of Bates' role and the basis for his testimony, given counsel's
references to his sworn testimony and declarations in other cases
in which he has been involved.

The Trust also offered Daniel T. Reineke and William G. Foster as
experts in opposition to summary judgment.  Judge Robinson,
however, agreed with Chevron that these experts' opinions must be
excluded because they plainly contradict the Kansas Supreme
Court's holding in Fawcett and because they are legal conclusions.

A full-text copy of Judge Robinson's November 9, 2016 memorandum
and order is available at https://is.gd/BHZPI2 from Leagle.com.

Roco, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Barbara C. Frankland --
bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA.

Roco, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Rex A. Sharp --
rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA & Ryan C. Hudson, Rex
A. Sharp, PA.

Thelma Jean Lambert, Duane Lambert, Crieg Rittenhouse, Bernita
Rittenhouse, Plaintiffs, represented by Barbara C. Frankland --
bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-
law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA & Ryan C. Hudson, Rex A. Sharp, PA.

Crieg Rittenhouse, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan C. Hudson, Rex A. Sharp,
PA.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Four Star Oil & Gas Company, Chevron
Texaco Exploration Production Inc., Defendants, represented by
Daniel M. McClure -- dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Norton Rose Fulbright US, LLP, pro hac vice, James M.
Armstrong, Foulston Siefkin LLP & Rebecca J. Cole --
rebecca.cole@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP,
pro hac vice.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: "Garcia" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted in part Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification in the case captioned,
EMANUEL GARCIA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiffs, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. . 16 Civ. 601 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.).

Named Plaintiff Emanuel Garcia brings the action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) claiming
unpaid overtime wages from his former employer, Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc.  Plaintiff was employed by Chipotle at several of its
New York City locations from approximately December 2010 to August
19, 2015, first as a crew member and later as an hourly paid
manager. Plaintiff claims that during his employment, he was
subjected to two unlawful policies with respect to his wages: time
shaving and time shifting. First, Plaintiff claims that
approximately once per week on average, he was required to work
beyond his scheduled clockout time for no pay.

Chipotle is an American corporation that operates a nationwide,
non-franchised chain of Mexican-style fast food restaurants, with
over sixty locations in New York City. Its employees include non-
exempt, hourly paid managers and "crew members," as well as
exempt, salary-paid managers and "apprentices."

On January 26, 2016, Plaintiff brought the action against
Chipotle, alleging that the company's time shaving and time
shifting policies denied him overtime wages in violation of the
FLSA and NYLL. Plaintiff brought his FLSA claims on behalf of
himself and all non-exempt employees employed by Chipotle within
New York City during the three years prior to the filing of the
Complaint, and his NYLL claims on behalf of himself and all non-
exempt employees employed by Chipotle within New York City during
the six years prior to the filing of the Complaint.

On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
certification of an FLSA collective action constituting all non-
exempt, hourly paid employees working at each of Chipotle's New
York City locations within the six years prior to the filing of
the Complaint arguing that all are similarly situated with respect
to the company's alleged policy and practice of time shaving and
time shifting to deny overtime wages.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not established that he
suffered an actionable violation of FLSA and his motion for
conditional certification regarding Defendant's purported FLSA
violations are not credible.

In his Opinion and Order dated November 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/NGxont from Leagle.com, Judge Ramos granted
Plaintiff's request for citywide conditional certification, but
only as to Plaintiff's time shaving claim under the FLSA because
the Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of proving that the
employees were "made to shift overtime hours without being paid
the overtime due to them" and denied as to Plaintiff's request for
a collective reaching back six years and for equitable tolling
because the Court does not find that the case presents any such
"rare and exceptional circumstances.

Defendants are directed to produce a list of the names, titles,
compensation rates, dates of employment, last known mailing
addresses, known email addresses, and known telephone numbers for
hourly employees who worked in New York City during the three
years prior to the filing of the Complaint.

The parties were directed to meet and confer over the content of
the notice to be sent to the potential opt-in plaintiffs and, if
any disagreements remain, to submit such notice to the Court for
approval by November 17, 2016.

Emanuel Garcia is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 E 39th St.
      New York, NY 10016-2555

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is represented by Brian Daniel
Murphy, Esq. -- dmmurphy@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP;
Richard J. Simmons, Esq. -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- and
Lisa M. Lewis, Esq. -- lmlewis@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD,
MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP -- Bruce A. Montoya, Esq. --
smontoya@messner.com -- John Karl Shunk, Esq. --
jshunk@messner.com -- and Louis Matthew Grossman, Esq. --
lgrossman@messner.com -- MESSNER REEVES LLP


CIENA HEALTH: "Butler" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
SHEILA TATUM BUTLER, the Plaintiff, v. CIENA HEALTH CARE
MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-14071-SFC-EAS
(E.D. Mich., Nov. 17, 2016), seeks an award of liquidated damages
in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid overtime wages as
described by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and all attorney
fees and court costs necessitated in having to bring the instant
action.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is entitled to overtime
pay for all hours worked over 40 in a work week and she has unpaid
overtime pay for which she is entitled to be compensated for. The
Defendant allegedly violated the FLSA by failing to compensate
Plaintiff at a rate of one and a half times her regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 in a work week. This violation of
the FLSA was knowing and willful within the meaning of the FLSA.

Ciena Healthcare operates skilled nursing facilities and
rehabilitation care centers in Michigan and Connecticut. It offers
various post-hospital stay services that follow a hospital
discharge ranging from short-term rehabilitation stays to long-
term nursing care.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sandra Hanshaw Burink, Esq.
          112 W. Washington Street, Suite A
          Marquette, MI 49855
          Telephone: (906) 273 1551
          E-mail: shburink@hb-lawoffices.com


CIGNA CORPORATION: Sued Over Deceptive Prescription Drugs Pricing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL PERRY, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CIGNA CORPORATION, CIGNA HEALTH AND
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OPTUMRX, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-01904 (D. Conn., Nov. 17, 2016), seeks to recover
monetary damages, injunctive relief, and other remedies resulting
from Defendants' common fraudulent and deceptive pricing scheme to
artificially inflate prescription copayment amounts (copayment or
copay) causing consumers to pay more than they otherwise would on
purchases of medically necessary, covered prescription drugs.

According to the complaint, Defendants utilize U.S. Mail and
interstate wire facilities to engage in their fraudulent billing
scheme. Defendants represent to plan participants that their
copayment amount is based on some portion of the actual cost for
the drug, when, in fact, plan participants pay more than the
actual cost of the drug and Defendants simply pocket the
overpayment in the form of prescription claw back. Defendants
represent to the pharmacies that they are clawing back the
increased copayment amount because consumers overpaid for their
prescriptions. However, Defendants never disclose this to plan
participants, nor do they reimburse plan participants for their
supposed overpayments. The amounts Defendants claw back from the
copayments are pure, undisclosed profit for Defendants. The costs
incurred by plan members resulting from Defendants' fraudulent
scheme can be significant. For example, when a consumer pays a $10
prescription copayment to the pharmacy for a medically necessary,
covered prescription drug, as required under the consumer's health
benefit plan, the acquisition cost of the drug may be only $3. The
PBM then reduces the pharmacy's reimbursement for the claim for
this prescription by $6 as an adjustment to the original claim. In
this scenario, the PBM has "clawed back" $6 of the $10 copay.
Ultimately, the pharmacy is reimbursed $4 (all from the consumer
copayment), making only $1 over the cost of the drug, while the
Defendants fraudulently retain $6 -- which they do not pass back
to the plan participant.

In order to implement Defendants' fraudulent scheme, Defendants
allegedly contracts with participating pharmacies, require the
pharmacists not to disclose the existence of the claw back or the
fact that a plan member could, in certain circumstances, pay more
as a copayment for a prescription drug than if the plan member did
not have insurance. Pharmacies are often subject to "gag clauses"
in their contracts, prohibiting them from advising plan
participants that he or she could pay less for a drug if the
purchase is made without applying the pharmacy insurance benefit.

The Defendants are health insurance companies, along with a
pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), that provide and administer health
and pharmacy benefits to insureds. The PBM is retained by Cigna,
on behalf of the plan or third-party payors, to provide pharmacy
benefits to plan members, which includes, inter alia, establishing
a formulary of drugs that will be covered, a network of pharmacies
that will serve as participating pharmacies for plan participants
to obtain their prescriptions, copayment amounts, coinsurance
amounts, and deductibles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT,
          ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: 212 223 6444
          Facsimile: 212 223 6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  ecomite@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
          LEMMON LAW FIRM LLC
          P.O. Box 904
          15058 River Road
          Hahnville, LA 70057
          Telephone: 985 783 6789
          Facsimile: 985 783 1333
          E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          P. O. Box 382434
          Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
          Telephone: (205) 908 4906
          Facsimile: (866) 747 3905
          E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          Greg L. Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
          7031 Halcyon Park Dr.
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 546 8838
          Facsimile: (334) 409 7001
          E-mail: Gldavis@Knology.net

               - and -

          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341 0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341 0844
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Brad J. Moore, Esq.
          STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN
          KOEHLER MOORE KAHLER
          3600 15th Avenue West, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98119
          Telephone: (206) 448 1777
          Facsimile: (206) 728 2131
          E-mail: brad@stritmatter.com


CLERMONT YORK: Court Rules in Tenants' Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Carol R. Edmead of New York Supreme Court dismissed in part
defendant's affirmative defenses and granted plaintiffs' motion
seeking summary judgment as to its claim for a declaratory
judgment on the issue of regulatory status in the case captioned,
PAULA GERARD, SHERRI LYDELL, LISA QUITONI, and LAURA ZINGMOND, ON
BEHALF OF THEMSELVES and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. CLERMONT YORK ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendant, Case No.
101150/10 (N.Y. Sup.).

Clermont owns an apartment building called "The Clermont," located
on the Upper East Side of Manhattan at 444 East 82nd and 1533 York
Avenue. The Clermont was constructed in the 1960s and has 34
floors, as well as 415 units. With the enactment of the Rent
Stabilization Law of 1969 (RSL) and the Emergency Tenant
Protection Act of 1974, the building's apartments became subject
to rent stabilization.

J-51 is a program in New York City that allows the owners of
multiple dwellings to qualify for tax exemptions and/or abatements
if they perform certain projects. Qualifying projects include
rehabilitations, major capital improvements, such as asbestos
abatements, and residential conversions of non-residential
buildings. In 1993, the Legislature passed the Rent Regulation
Reform Act (RRRA), which, among other things, provided for luxury
deregulation of certain rent-stabilized apartments. The RRRA
carved out an exception providing that buildings receiving J-51
benefits are not subject to luxury deregulation (Rent
Stabilization Law (RSL) Sections 26-504.1, 26-504.2).

Plaintiffs are current and former tenants of the building who
allege that, since July 1997, Clermont York Associates, LLC
(Clermont) has improperly deregulated apartments in the building
despite receiving tax benefits through Administrative Code of the
City of New York Section 11-243 (previously Section J51-2.5), more
commonly known as the J-51 Law. On January 27, 2010, plaintiffs
commenced this action by filing a complaint seeking declaratory
judgment as to their rights as tenants and for monetary damages.

The first cause of action seeks an order: (1) declaring that
plaintiffs' apartments are subject to rent stabilization and that
Clermont is required to offer renewal leases on forms required by
the RSL and approved by the Division of Housing & Community
Renewal (DHCR) at regulated rents, and to otherwise continue the
tenancies under the same terms and conditions as were provided at
the inception of their tenancies; (2) declaring that any petitions
for deregulation submitted to the DHCR by Clermont are invalid and
should be withdrawn, and that any deregulation orders already
issued by the DHCR are null and void; (3) permanently enjoining
defendant from luxury deregulating any apartment at The Clermont;
(4) directing defendant to revise all leases which incorrectly
provide that the units are not subject to rent stabilization, and
--  to the extent that any plaintiffs have been denied the
continuation of their tenancies on the same terms and conditions
that were provided to them at the inception of their tenancies  --
restoring those terms and conditions that have been denied; (5)
awarding plaintiffs damages for rent overcharges; (6) enjoining
defendant from continuing to collect rent overcharges; and (7)
awarding interest on rent overcharges, as well as reasonable costs
and attorneys' fees pursuant to Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) Sec.
2526.1 (d). The second cause of action seeks a monetary judgment
for plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to Real
Property Law Sections 234, the RSL and CPLR 909.

The case was initially before Judge Sherwood, who granted
Clermont's motion to dismiss under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, finding that DHCR should decide the issues presented
by the complaint. The First Department reversed, reasoning that
"the action presents legal issues left open after the Court of
Appeals' decision in Roberts v Tishman Speyer Props., L.P. (13
N.Y.3d 270 (2009) including whether that decision is to be applied
retroactively or prospectively.

Plaintiffs move, pursuant to CPLR 3211, to dismiss defendant's
affirmative defenses; additionally, plaintiffs move, pursuant to
CPLR 3212, for declaratory judgment on the issue of regulatory
status and determining which methodology should be used for
calculating damages.

Defendant cross-moves, for partial summary judgment for a
declaratory judgment specifying its own preferred methodology for
calculating damages, as well as a declaration that all apartments
in their building are subject to possible deregulation.

In his Findings dated November 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/wMOe3Y from Leagle.com, Judge Edmead held that the
branch of plaintiffs' motion that seeks to dismiss defendant's
affirmative defenses is granted except with respect to defendant's
affirmative defense of laches because Clermont is also correct
that plaintiff also brings equitable claims for a declaratory
judgment and an injunction. As to plaintiffs' motion seeking
summary judgment as to its claim for a declaratory judgment on the
issue of regulatory status, the Court found that plaintiffs are
entitled to a declaration that their apartments are subject to
rent stabilization and that Clermont is required to offer renewal
leases on forms required by the RSL and approved by DHCR at
regulated rents, and to otherwise continue the tenancies under the
same terms and conditions as were provided at the inception of
their tenancies.

Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of the decision and order with
notice of entry upon all parties within 20 days of entry.


CONTEXTLOGIC INC: "Gerboc" Class Action Dismissed in Part
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Donald C. Nugent of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted in part Defendant,
ContextLogic, Inc.'s motion to dismiss in the case captioned, MAX
GERBOC, Plaintiff, v. CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16
CV 928 (N.D. Ohio).

Plaintiff Max Gerboc originally filed his Class Action Complaint
against ContextLogic in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas on
March 18, 2016. Mr. Gerboc alleges ContextLogic's advertisement
practices are unfair and deceptive, intentionally designed to
mislead Mr. Gerboc and other consumers by including bogus
reference prices in its website advertising, in violation of
Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio Rev. Code Sec. 1345 et
seq. (Ohio CSPA). In addition to his Ohio CSPA claim, Mr. Gerboc
sets forth claims for breach of contract, fraud and unjust
enrichment.

In the Complaint, ContextLogic created and operates a website,
www.wish.com (the Website), where consumers can purchase thousands
of types of products, ranging from home goods to apparel. On
January 15, 2016, Mr. Gerboc purchased Portable Bluetooth Speakers
(the Speakers) from the Website for $27.00. Mr. Gerboc alleges
that in addition to listing the $27.00 purchase price,
ContextLogic falsely represented that the Speakers were regularly
priced $300, showing "$300," and represented a savings of 91% off
the regular price, in an effort to induce customers to purchase
products from its Website.

In the motion, ContextLogic argues that the Complaint fails to
identify any conduct that could be considered deceptive,
unconscionable, fraudulent, or in breach of any agreement between
ContextLogic and Mr. Gerboc or other Ohio consumers; that Mr.
Gerboc has not alleged an injury cognizable under Ohio law; and,
that the failure to allege actual damages defeats Mr. Gerboc's
class action claim.

Mr. Gerboc filed his Brief in Opposition on July 9, 2016 arguing
that his claims against ContextLogic for violation of the Ohio
CSPA, unjust enrichment and fraud, as well as his class action
claim, are properly before the Court. Mr. Gerboc notes that he
does not oppose dismissal of his breach of contract claim.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 4, 2016
available at https://is.gd/J73Wk7 from Leagle.com, Judge Nugent
granted motion to dismiss as to claims under Sections
1345.02(B)(1) and 1345.02(B)(5) because there is allegation that
ContextLogic misrepresented the Speakers' benefits or failed to
supply the Speakers as ordered; unjust enrichment and fraud claims
for failure to a valid claim; and Ohio CSPA class action claim
because he alleges no actual damages and, in the absence of actual
damages, a consumer cannot maintain a class action under the Ohio
CSPA. The Court denied as to Ohio Plaintiff's individual claims
pursuant to Rev. Code Sec. 1345.02(B)(8) because his allegations
are sufficient to raise his right to relief under Section
1345.02(B)(8).

A status conference was scheduled for November 14, 2016.

Max Gerboc is represented by Frank A. Bartela, Esq. --
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. --
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -- and Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. --
pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN

Contextlogic, Inc. is represented by James B. Saylor, Esq. --
jsaylor@kelleydrye.com -- Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. --
jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- and Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq. --
lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN -- David H.
Wallace, Esq. -- dwallace@taftlaw.com -- and Michael J. Zbiegien,
Jr., Esq. -- cziepfel@taftlaw.com -- TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER


CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: To Defend Against "Grae" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Corrections Corporation of America 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 will defend itself against the "Grae" class action
lawsuit.

In a memorandum to the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), dated
August 18, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, directed
that, as each contract with privately operated prisons reaches the
end of its term, the BOP should either decline to renew that
contract or substantially reduce its scope in a manner consistent
with law and the overall decline of the BOP's inmate population.
In addition to the decline in the BOP's inmate population, the DOJ
memorandum cites purported operational, programming, and cost
efficiency factors as reasons for the new DOJ directive.

The Company said, "Following the release of the DOJ memorandum, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and
certain of our current and former officers in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, captioned
Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America et al., Case No. 3:16-
cv-02267. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased or acquired our securities between
February 27, 2012 and August 17, 2016. In general, the lawsuit
alleges that, during this timeframe, our public statements were
false and/or misleading regarding the purported operational,
programming, and cost efficiency factors cited in the DOJ
memorandum and, as a result, our stock price was artificially
inflated. The lawsuit alleges that the publication of the DOJ
memorandum on August 18, 2016 revealed the alleged fraud, causing
the per share price of our stock to decline, thereby causing harm
to the putative class of shareholders."

"We believe the lawsuit is entirely without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against it. In addition, we maintain insurance,
with certain self-insured retention amounts, to cover the alleged
claims which mitigates the risk such litigation would have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows."

As of September 30, 2016, the Company owned or controlled 49
correctional and detention facilities, owned or controlled 25
residential reentry facilities, and managed an additional 11
correctional and detention facilities owned by government
partners, with a total design capacity of approximately 89,300
beds in 20 states and the District of Columbia.


CREDIT CONTROL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Nguyen" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Khoi Nguyen, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated v. Credit Control, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-02805-DMS-MDD
(S.D. Cal., November 15, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a
message without prior express consent of the called party.

Credit Control, LLC operates a debt collection company
headquartered at 5757 Phantom Dr #330, Hazelwood, MO 63042.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald Marron, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
      E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com


DIGITAL NETWORKS: "McMahan" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH McMAHAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, vs. DIGITAL NETWORKS, LLC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01290-D (W.D. Okla., November 10,
2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kenneth McMahan worked for Defendant performing manual labor
surrounding the installation and operation of communications
equipment in the oilfield.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, 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
             litkin@fibichlaw.com
             adunlap@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


DOLLAR THRIFTY: "McKinnon" Plaintiffs May File 5th Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned SANDRA McKINNON, ET AL. v. DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE
GROUP, INC., ET AL., Case No. 12-cv-04457-YGR (N.D. Cal.):

   -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion to allow Roger Tien and
      Jaime Gavilan Cabello to intervene permissively in the
      litigation and the Plaintiffs' motion to file a fifth
      amended complaint;

   -- denying with prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification; and

   -- denying as moot the Defendants' motion to exclude the
      opinions of the Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Donald
      Lichtenstein.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Defendants
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Dollar Rent-a-Car, Inc.,
and DTG Operations, Inc.  The gravamen of the case concerns the
Defendants' alleged practice of selling collision or liability
damage waiver policies in connection with vehicle rentals to the
Plaintiffs without providing adequate notice (through signage,
oral statements, and otherwise) that the coverage might be
duplicative of other policies (e.g., through auto insurance or
credit card protection plans) already held by the Plaintiffs.

The Court sets a case management conference for December 12, 2016,
at 2:00 p.m.  By December 5, 2016, the parties will file a case
management statement consistent with the requirements of the Local
Rules and the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/dJCF4D from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Sandra McKinnon and Kristen Tool, and Intervenor
Plaintiffs Melinda Basker and Chanh Tran are represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor, PMB #131
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 860-2503
          Facsimile: (888) 331-9633
          E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

Plaintiffs Sandra McKinnon and Kristen Tool are represented by:

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          S. Scott Garrett, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC
          1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7060
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
                  sgarrett@whatleykallas.com

Plaintiff Sandra McKinnon is represented by:

          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          60 State Street, Seventh Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 573-5118
          Facsimile: (617) 573-5090
          E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

Defendants Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., and Dollar Rent
a Car, Inc., are represented by:

          Daniel Justin Weiss, Esq.
          Jill Marie Hutchison, Esq.
          John F. Ward, Esq.
          Ross B. Bricker, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
          E-mail: dweiss@jenner.com
                  jhutchison@jenner.com
                  jward@jenner.com
                  rbricker@jenner.com

               - and -

          Kenneth E. Keller, Esq.
          Tracy M. Clements, Esq.
          KELLER SLOAN ROMAN & HOLLAND LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 249-8330
          Facsimile: (415) 249-8333
          E-mail: kkeller@ksrh.com
                  tclements@ksrh.com

Defendant DTG Operations, Inc., is represented by:

          Daniel Justin Weiss, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
          E-mail: dweiss@jenner.com

Defendant DTG Operations, Inc., is represented by:

          Jill Marie Hutchison, Esq.
          John F. Ward, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
          E-mail: jhutchison@jenner.com
                  jward@jenner.com

               - and -

          Kenneth E. Keller, Esq.
          Tracy M. Clements, Esq.
          KELLER SLOAN ROMAN & HOLLAND LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 249-8330
          Facsimile: (415) 249-8333
          E-mail: kkeller@ksrh.com
                  tclements@ksrh.com


DROPCAR INC: Faces "Padilla" Suit Under FLSA, New York Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DROPCAR, INC., SPENCER
RICHARDSON, DAVID NEWMAN, DARLYN ALMONTE, and SPENSER CHARLES,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08744 (S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2016),
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

Defendant DropCar is a valet service company. Its customers make
requests for valet services via a DropCar mobile application.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam Sackowitz, Esq.
     Katz Melinger PLLC
     280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 460-0047
     Fax: (212) 428-6811
     E-mail: ajsackowitz@katzmelinger.com


ECM ENERGY: "Coverly" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Coverly and James M. Stevens, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ECM ENERGY SERVICES,
INC., and HENRY WAHL, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00216-IMK
(N.D.W. Va., November 14, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

ECM ENERGY SERVICES, INC. is an energy services company focused on
natural gas and oil trucking and water logistics.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mark Goldner, Esq.
     Maria W. Hughes, Esq.
     HUGHES & GOLDNER, PLLC
     10 Hale Street, Fifth Floor
     Charleston, WV 25301
     Phone: (304) 400-4816
     Fax: (304) 205-7729
     E-mail: mark@wvemploymentrights.com
             maria@wvemploymentrights.com


EOG RESOURCES: Summary Judgment Bid in "Roco" Suit Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROCO, INC. and SONYA SMITH, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EOG
RESOURCES, INC. (including predecessors and successors),
Defendant, Case No. 14-1065-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan.), Judge Julie A.
Robinson:

     -- denied Roco, Inc.'s motion to strike most of the
        declaration of Alan Bates as improper opinion and
        conclusory testimony;

     -- denied Roco's motion to strike most of the declaration of
        Michael Cobb of DCP Midstream as improper opinion and
        conclusory testimony; and

     -- granted in part and denied, in part, EOG Resources,
        Inc.'s motion for summary judgment as to Roco and motion
        to dismiss all Kansas claims.

Roco and Sonya Smith brought the lawsuit to recover underpaid
royalties due on oil and gas wells operated by EOG.  Roco, an
alleged royalty owner in one well in Kansas formerly operated by
EOG, and Smith, an alleged royalty owner in EOG-operated wells in
Oklahoma, claimed that EOG underpaid royalties on the gas wells by
improperly taking deductions from royalty payments before the gas
products were in marketable condition.

Roco alleged that EOG paid royalty on the net, not gross, gas
contract value, in breach of the marketable condition rule.  Roco
maintained that EOG breached an implied covenant to place the gas
and its constituent parts in "marketable condition" at EOG's
exclusive cost, and that EOG breached the implied duty of good
faith and fair dealing by entering into gas purchase agreements
with third-party purchasers on paper only, thereby hiding the
midstream processing costs that were passed on to the royalty
owners.  Part of Roco's claim is that EOG improperly deducted the
Kansas Conservation Fee, which the Kansas Supreme Court has held
may not be shared with royalty owners.

On October 28, 2015, before the plaintiffs had filed their motion
for class certification, EOG moved for summary judgment based on a
July 2, 2015 Kansas Supreme Court decision, Fawcett v. Oil
Producers, Inc. of Kansas.  That case squarely addressed the
marketable condition rule as it applies to third-party purchase
agreements similar to those EOG entered into.

Judge Robinson agreed with EOG that the Fawcett decision controls
disposition of the Kansas breach of lease claim, with the
exception of the conservation fee component of that claim.  Roco
attempted to avoid the result of Fawcett by repackaging its
implied duty of marketability argument as a breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing, but the judge held that Fawcett
addresses the issues raised by Roco, regardless of the label.

"As in Fawcett, the gas here was sold and marketed at the well, or
midstream in the field, and the quality of the gas does not
dictate a finding that it was not in a marketable condition.
Therefore, in order to satisfy the marketable condition rule and
allow for midstream costs to be shared with the royalty owners,
the gas was required to be acceptable to third-party purchasers
Anadarko Energy Services Company and DCP Midstream L.P., at the
time of delivery, and the third-party purchase agreements must
have been good faith transactions.  EOG satisfied its summary
judgment burden of showing an absence of evidence that the gas was
either not acceptable to these third-party purchasers, or that the
purchase agreements were not good faith transactions.  Roco has
not come forward with specific evidence to show that these
particular transactions do not meet the standards set forth in
Fawcett, and this Court declines to make a generalized finding
that the sales arrangements at issue in this case, which were also
at issue in Fawcett, constitute sham sales designed to circumvent
the marketable condition rule," said Judge Robinson.

Moreover, Judge Robinson found that Roco has not come forward with
evidence that EOG breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing
implied in the lease.  The judge noted that Roco has failed to
point to an existing provision in the lease that required EOG to
pay royalty on proceeds minus post-sale expenses incurred by third
party purchasers to add further value to the gas before it entered
the interstate pipeline.  Moreover, the judge found that there is
no specific evidence in the record about the third-party
transactions in the case that suggest EOG breached the good faith
and fair dealing duty it owed Roco when they were executed.

Judge Robinson thus granted summary judgment in favor of EOG on
the marketable condition rule claim.

Judge Robinson, however, found that the conservation fee claim is
not moot, as urged by EOG.  Although EOG has offered to pay the
conservation fee claims wrongfully deducted from Roco's royalty
payments between 2006 and 2011, the check delivered to Roco has
not been cashed, nor a settlement offer otherwise accepted.  The
judge held that under these circumstances, controlling law
dictates that Roco's conservation fee claim is not moot.  Judge
Robinson concluded that that component of the breach of lease
claim survives summary judgment, so the judge likewise denied
EOG's motion to dismiss all Kansas claims.

Roco moved to strike the declarations of Alan Bates and Michael
Cobb that were attached to EOG's reply memorandum as inadmissible
expert opinion testimony.  But Judge Robinson overruled and denied
the motion because Bates and Cobb are not being offered as
experts.  Bates and Cobb were offering lay opinion testimony that
meets the standards set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 701.

To the extent Roco argued for the first time in the reply that its
motion to exclude is based on the failure to timely disclose Bates
and Cobb as lay witnesses, Judge Robinson denied the motion as
well, finding that Roco has clearly been on notice of Bates and
Cobb's roles and the basis for their testimony, given counsel's
references to sworn testimony and declarations in other cases in
which they have been involved.

Roco also offered Daniel T. Reineke and William G. Foster as
experts in opposition to summary judgment.  Judge Robinson,
however, agreed with EOG that these experts' opinions must be
excluded because they plainly contradict the Kansas Supreme
Court's holding in Fawcett and because they are legal conclusions.

A full-text copy of Judge Robinson's November 9, 2016 memorandum
and order is available at https://is.gd/pP7mRs from Leagle.com.

Roco, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Barbara C. Frankland --
bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA.

Roco, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Rex A. Sharp --
rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA & Ryan C. Hudson, Rex
A. Sharp, PA.

Sonya L. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara C. Frankland,
Rex A. Sharp, PA, Rex A. Sharp, Rex A. Sharp, PA & Ryan C. Hudson,
Rex A. Sharp, PA.

EOG Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel M. McClure -
- dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US,
LLP, pro hac vice, James M. Armstrong, Foulston Siefkin LLP &
Rebecca J. Cole -- rebecca.cole@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, pro hac vice.


EVERYDAY HEALTH: Faces "Jordan" Lawsuit Over Ziff Davis Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLARENCE JORDAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. EVERYDAY HEALTH, INC., DOUG
MCCORMICK, BEN WOLIN, HABIB KAIROUZ, DAVID GOLDEN, SHARON WIENBAR,
MYRTLE POTTER, DANA EVAN, and LAIZER KORNWASSER, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-08836 (S.D.N.Y., November 14, 2016), alleges
violations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act in relation to
the proposed merger of Everyday Health with Ziff Davis, LLC.

Everyday Health develops and operates digital marketing and
communications platforms for healthcare marketers seeking to
engage consumers and healthcare professionals by providing health
and wellness content through websites, mobile applications, and
social media.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Wilson, Esq.
     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James Wilson, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            jwilson@faruqilaw.com


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Court Tosses "Illobre" FDCPA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District
Court of the Southern District of New York granted dismissal of
Amended Complaint in the case captioned, NICHOLAS A. ILLOBRE,
Individually and on behalf of a class, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL
RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16 CV 452 (VB)
(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Nicholas A. Illobre brings the putative class action
against defendant Financial Recovery Services, Inc., alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15
U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. Defendant sent plaintiff a debt
collection letter dated August 5, 2015. The front side of the
letter contains a notice required to be communicated to consumers
by debt collectors pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a).

Plaintiff alleges the inclusion of both the Validation Notice and
the Communication Notice in the collection letter violates
Sections 1692e and 1692g because paraphrasing the language of
Section 1692c(c) confuses the consumer, and overshadows and
contradicts the required language of the Validation Notice.

In the motion, Defendant asserted that the amended complaint be
dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6).

In his Opinion and Order dated November 3, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/o3iSdP from Leagle.com, Judge Briccetti concluded
that the inclusion of the Communication Notice, which accurately
and fairly discloses consumer rights under Section 1692c(c), in
the debt collection letter does not violate the FDCPA.

Nicholas A. Illobre is represented by:

      Dan Shaked, Esq.
      SHAKED & POSNER
      255 W. 36th St., 8th  Floor
      New York, NY 10018

Financial Recovery Services, Inc. is represented by Michael Thomas
Etmund, Esq. -- Mike.Etmund@lawmoss.com -- MOSS & BARNETT


FIRST BANCSHARES: Faces "Raul" Securities Class Suit in Miss.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Raul, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GREGORY H. MITCHELL, TED E. PARKER, J.
DOUGLAS SEIDENBURG, CHARLES R. LIGHTSEY, ANDREW D. STETELMAN,
DAVID W. BOMBOY, E. RICKY GIBSON, FRED A. MCMURRY, RAY COLD, JR.,
THE FIRST BANCSHARES, INC., A. WILBERT'S SONS LUMBER AND SHINGLE
CO., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00194-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss.,
November 9, 2016) alleges violations of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act in connection with a private placement of preferred
stock wherein Company insiders allegedly were provided
preferential treatment and received a significant discount to
purchase shares of First Bancshares -- and related acquisitions of
Iberville Bank and Gulf Coast Community Bank by First Bancshares.

First Bancshares is the holding company for The First, A National
Banking Association.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John W. Barrett, Esq.
     David McMullan, Esq.
     Sterling Starns, Esq.
     DON BARRETT, P.A.
     404 Court Square North
     P.O. Box 927
     Lexington, MS 39095-0927
     Phone: 662-834-2488
     E-mail: Dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
             SstarnS@barrettlawgroup.com
             Dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com


GCA SERVICES: Not "Transportation Employer", Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the United States District
Court of the Western District of Washington granted defendant's
motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, ABDIKHADAR
JAMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GCA SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. C16-0331RSL (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging that their
employer, Defendant GCA Services Group, Inc., failed to pay an
hourly rate of $15.00 after January 1, 2014, when Chapter 7.45 of
the City of SeaTac Municipal Code went into effect.

GCA Services argues that it does not fall within the definition of
"Transportation Employer" and is therefore not subject to the
ordinance. It seeks summary dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs argue that GCA Services is a Transportation Employer
because it provides "baggage handling," "ground transportation
management," and "customer service" in the City of SeaTac.

In his Order dated November 3, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/FcjP7J from Leagle.com, Judge Lasnik concluded that
GCA Services operates and provides a vehicle shuttling services:
it does not provide customer service, baggage handling services
and "ground transportation management" for purposes of the
ordinance.

Abdikhadar Jama, et al. are represented by Daniel R. Whitmore,
Esq. -- dwhitmore@badgleymullins.com -- and Duncan Calvert Turner,
Esq. -- dturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC

GCA Services Group, Inc. is represented by Timothy J. O'Connell,
Esq. -- tim.oconnell@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Ratliff Seeks to Stop Sale to Asia Pacific
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL RATLIFF II, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC., WILLIAM H.
BOLINDER, G. KENT CONRAD, MELINA E. HIGGINS, THOMAS J. MCINERNEY,
DAVID M. MOFFETT, THOMAS E. MOLONEY, JAMES A. PARKE, JAMES S.
RIEPE, ASIA PACIFIC GLOBAL CAPITAL CO., LTD. and ASIA PACIFIC
GLOBAL CAPITAL USA CORPORATION, Case No. 3:16-cv-00912-REP (E.D.
Va., November 14, 2016), is brought on behalf of holders of the
common stock of Genworth seeking to enjoin the acquisition of the
publicly owned shares of Genworth common stock by Asia Pacific.

On October 23, 2016, Genworth and China Oceanwide Holdings Group
Co., Ltd., jointly announced that they had entered into a
definitive agreement pursuant to which Asia Pacific will acquire
the common stock of Genworth for $5.43 per share in cash, which
equates to a total transaction value of approximately $2.7
billion.  Upon completion of the Proposed Transaction, Genworth
will be a standalone subsidiary of China Oceanwide and Genworth
will continue its operations as before from its current
headquarters in Richmond Virginia with its senior management team
in place.

Genworth is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Richmond, Virginia.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.  Genworth is the
country's largest underwriter and issuer of long term care
insurance and also specializes in life and mortgage insurance,
with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Asia Pacific is a United States and Asia-Pacific focus merchant
bank, global financial and strategic management consulting firm,
specializing in providing advisory services in cross-border
mergers and acquisitions, asset development, recapitalization,
private equity and investment banking.  Asia Pacific is a limited
liability company incorporated in the People's Republic of China.
Asia Pacific Global is a Delaware corporation formed to effect the
Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles L. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & SKILLING, P.C.
          4801 Radford Avenue, Suite A
          Richmond, VA 23230
          Telephone: (804) 447-0307
          Facsimile: (804) 447-0367
          E-mail: cwilliams@williamsandskilling.com

               - and -

          Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
          Peter W. Overs, Jr., Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 753-3630
          E-mail: rharwood@hfesq.com
                  povers@hfesq.com


GIANT COURIERS: Faces "Quartey" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Quartey, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Giant couriers LLC and Marvin
Clarke, Case No. 1:16-cv-06276 (November 10, 2016), seeks to
recover, among others, alleged unpaid wages and unpaid overtime
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State Labor Law.

GIANT COURIERS LLC was founded on 2009 and has its registered
office in Brooklyn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GPS GLOBAL: Faces "Flournoy" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES FLOURNOY, on behalf of himself individually, and ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED Plaintiffs, v. GPS GLOBAL PALLETS
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03358 (S.D. Tex.,
November 14, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The proposed "Plaintiff Class" are current and former employees of
Defendant who work, or have worked, for Defendant as "Welders" and
whose job duties included building and welding metal pallets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
     THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
     3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
     Houston, TX 77054
     Phone: (832) 778-8182
     Fax: (832) 778-8353
     E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


GRC LANDSCAPING: Faces "Wright" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
OTIS JAMES WRIGHT, and all others similarly situated under 29
Plaintiff, vs. GRC LANDSCAPING II LLC, A/K/A GRC LANDSCAPING
SERVICES, LLC a Florida Corporation, DEON BOTHA individually,
DANIEL GOLDSTEIN individually, FRANK PERKINS individually
Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-62661-JAL (S.D. Fla., November 10,
2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages,
interests, costs and attorney's fees for unpaid overtime pay in
violation of the laws of the United States, and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

GRC Landscaping offers commercial lawn care and landscape
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


GUARDIAN PROTECTION: Pa. Judge Sends "Fitzhenry" Case to D. S.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK FITZHENRY, individually and on behalf of a class
of all persons and entities similarly situated v. GUARDIAN
PROTECTION SERVICES, INC., et al, Civil Action No. 16-1253 (W.D.
Pa.), District Judge Mark A. Kearney ordered the Clerk of Court to
transfer the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action
claim to the Clerk of the District of South Carolina, Charleston
Division.

Under the TCPA, the appropriate venue of the case is where the
phone call is received. The Plaintiff received the alleged phone
call from the Defendant, without his consent, in South Carolina.
It was neither on the Plaintiff's signing of an agreement with the
Defendant in Pennsylvania nor the vicarious liability gives rise
to proper venue of the case.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 9, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/bbOLsQ from Leagle.com.

MARK FITZHENRY, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony I. Paronich, pro
hac vice.

MARK FITZHENRY, Plaintiff, represented by Clayton S. Morrow,
Morrow & Artim, PC & Edward A. Broderick, Broderick & Paronich,
P.C., pro hac vice.

GUARDIAN PROTECTION SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by
Laura E. Vendzules -- LVendzules@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP &
Michael A. Iannucci -- Iannucci@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP.

SECURITY FORCE, INC., Defendant, represented by Justin M. Tuskan
-- jtuskan@metzlewis.com -- Metz Lewis Brodman Must O'Keefe LLC &
Justin T. Barron -- jbarron@metzlewis.com -- Metz Lewis Brodman
Must O'Keefe LLC.


GULFPORT ENERGY: Faces "Slone" Suit Seeking Payment of Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY SLONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION, Case No. 5:16-cv-01296-HE
(W.D. Okla., November 14, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
overtime wages and other damages from Gulfport under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and
the Ohio Prompt Pay Act and the Ohio Constitution.

Gulfport is an Oklahoma City-based oil and natural gas exploration
and production company operating worldwide and throughout the
United States, including Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  adunlap@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

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


HERR FOODS: Faces "Merisier" Suit in East. District New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Herr Foods
Incorporated.

The case is captioned Kedney Merisier and Dreu VanHoose, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. Herr Foods
Incorporated, Case No. 1:16-cv-06350 (E.D.N.Y., November 15,
2016).

Herr Foods Incorporated is a manufacturer of fresh nutritious
snack foods, potato chips, pretzels, and corn chips.

Kedney Merisier and Dreu VanHoose are pro se plaintiffs.


HILLSBOROUGH, CA: Overcharges Residents for Water, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that residents of Hillsborough,
Calif., one of the wealthiest cities in the nation (more than
three times the median state income), claim Hillsborough
overcharges them for water, in a class action in Redwood City, San
Mateo County Court.


HOSPITAL OF MORRISTOWN: "Jones" FDCPA Complaint Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Ronnie Greer of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismissed with prejudice
Plaintiffs' Complaint and amended complaint in the case captioned,
WILMA JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HOSPITAL OF MORRISTOWN, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-CV-13 (E.D. Tenn.).

The plaintiffs filed the class action complaint alleging state law
claims and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
related to the defendants' attempts to collect debts.

The defendants, Hospital of Morristown, Inc., d/b/a Lakeway
Regional Hospital and Professional Account Services, Inc. (PASI)
filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, and a motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' first amended complaint. The defendants
argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
plaintiffs' state law claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs incurred debts to
Lakeway for medical services provided to the plaintiffs. After the
plaintiffs defaulted on the debts, Lakeway "assigned the debts to
PASI" for collection, and PASI hired defendant Michael Mossman
(Mossman) to attempt to collect the debts from plaintiffs. Debt
collection suits were filed in state court against the plaintiffs
using a state court civil summons and sworn affidavit. The
plaintiffs allege that "an employee of Mossman prepared the civil
summonses" and "employees or agents of PASI" signed the sworn
affidavits.

The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants have unjustly
benefited from the payments made by the plaintiffs on the void
judgments and ask the Court to provide restitution to the
plaintiffs in the amount of the payments made and pre-judgment
interest. Finally, the plaintiffs allege that "requesting the
entry of default judgments in the amounts of $688.51 against Jones
or $796.72 against the Longs, when it is apparent from the face of
the civil summons that Defendants had only demanded $588.51 and
$696.72, respectively, without providing Plaintiffs an opportunity
to dispute a specific amount for attorney fees, are false,
deceptive, and misleading representations" and violations of the
FDCPA.

In their response, the plaintiffs argue that the Court has
jurisdiction to hear the state law claims and to grant the relief
requested, setting aside the state court default judgments and
restitution of monies paid on the judgments.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 7, 2016
available at https://is.gd/qAIPOI from Leagle.com, Judge Greer
found that the plaintiffs' state law claims fall within the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which deprives the Court of jurisdiction
over those claims and failed to elaborate any further how the
statement in the civil summons is false, misleading, deceptive,
unconscionable, or a threat to take an unlawful actions.

The Court does not find that requesting a "reasonable attorney
fee" in a civil summons is false or misleading to the least
sophisticated consumer given the plaintiffs' lack of supporting
factual allegations.

Wilma Jones, et al. are represented by Peter A. Holland, Esq. --
peter@hollandlawfirm.com -- THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.; Alan C.
Lee, Esq. -- aleeattorney@gmail.com -- ALAN C. LEE, ATTORNEY

Professional Account Services, Inc., et al. are represented by
Martin Brent Yarborough, Esq. -- byarborough@mauricewutscher.com
-- MAURICE WUTSCHER, LLP

PASI is also represented by:

      Steven D. Lipsey, Esq.
      STONE & HINDS, PC
      Knoxville, TN 37902
      Tel: (965)546-6321


HOTEL CHANDLER: Faces "Riley" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HOTEL CHANDLER LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-08826 (S.D.N.Y., November 14, 2016), alleges that the
Defendant denied blind individuals throughout the United States
equal access to the goods and services Hotel Chandler LLC provides
to their non-disabled customers.

HOTEL CHANDLER LLC -- http://www.hotelchandler.com-- provides to
the public important goods, such as promotions, amenities and
accommodations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


IDEAL TAX: Faces "Hernandez" Class Suit in South. Dist. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Ideal Tax
Solution and Zane Business Development, Inc.

The case is captioned Evelyn Hernandez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Ideal Tax Solution and Zane
Business Development, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-24780-JEM (S.D. Fla.,
November 15, 2016).

Ideal Tax Solution operates a tax preparation service company
located at 3525 Hyland Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92626.

Zane Business Development, Inc. operates a marketing company in
Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      201 S Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Faces "Nunez" Securities Suit Over 2013 10-K
----------------------------------------------------------------
TED NUNEZ, JR., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., FRED WILKINSON,
BRYAN M. REASONS, AND LARRY HSU, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
08420 (D.N.J., November 10, 2016), alleges violations of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act in relation to disclosures the Company
made on its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that develops, manufactures, and markets bioequivalent
pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
     South Orange, NJ 07079
     Phone: (973) 313-1887
     Fax: (973) 833-0399
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


INSMED INC: Bucks County Employees Appointed Lead Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------
Insmed Incorporated 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 Bucks County
Employees Retirement Funds has been appointed as lead plaintiff
for the putative class.

On July 15, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Company and certain of its executive officers: Hoey v. Insmed
Incorporated, et al, No. 3:16-cv-04323-FLW-TJB (D.N.J. July 15,
2016). The complaint alleges that from March 18, 2013 through June
8, 2016, the Company and certain of our executive officers made
material misstatements or omissions concerning the likelihood of
the EMA approving the Company's European MAA for use of ARIKAYCE
in the treatment of NTM lung disease and the likelihood of
commercialization of ARIKAYCE in Europe. The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages.

On October 25, 2016, the Court issued an order appointing Bucks
County Employees Retirement Funds as lead plaintiff for the
putative class. A consolidated amended complaint has not yet been
filed. The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint
are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously;
however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome
of the lawsuit.

Insmed is a global biopharmaceutical company focused on the unmet
needs of patients with rare diseases.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Claims in Slocum Chemical Leak Suit Trimmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted in part Defendant
International Paper's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned,
SHIRLEY SLOCUM, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL., SECTION
"L" (1), Case No. 16-12563 (E.D. La.).

The class action case arose out of injuries allegedly sustained by
Plaintiffs Shirley Slocum, Patricia Welch, and Cesar Welch, Sr.
individually and on behalf of his minor children, Cesar Welch, Jr.
and Tericia Welch, Billy Youngblood, Sam Abram, and Zipporah
Abram, individually and collectively as class representatives, on
behalf of all other similarly situated class members (Plaintiffs).
Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendant, International Paper
Company, for failure to provide any 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.

On June 10, 2015, the sight glass on an evaporator tank containing
black liquor ruptured at the Bogalusa Paper Mill, which resulted
in a stream of black liquor erupting several feet into the air and
dispersing into the atmosphere. The next day, Defendants advised
the media that there was a "slight leak" in a process unit that
led to the dispersal of diluted black liquor, but that Defendants
were "confident that there is no risk to human health or the
environment. Plaintiffs disagree and contend that the black liquor
dispersal caused personal injuries, property damage and/or
emotional distress, and argue that Defendants are liable for
Plaintiffs' damages.

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by International
Paper, which asserts that Plaintiffs' case should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6). Defendant also
argues that certain subclasses of Plaintiffs have no basis for
recovery because the damages they seek are not allowed under
Louisiana law.

Plaintiffs filed a joint omnibus opposition to Defendant's motions
to dismiss. First, Plaintiffs argue that their motion to remand
this case to state court should be granted. In doing so, they
restate much of the argument included in the motion to remand,
including the argument that the case should be remanded because it
is unlikely to be certified as a class. Additionally, Plaintiffs
argue the case should be remanded because the LDEQ is a defendant,
and extending federal jurisdiction over a state entity would
violate sovereign immunity. Finally, Plaintiffs aver that this
case involves local, rather than national issues, and therefore
the Court should exercise discretionary abstention under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(3).

In the alternative, Plaintiffs argue that the facts alleged in
their complaints are sufficient to defeat a 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss.

In his Order and Reasons dated November 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/3A9y8w from Leagle.com, Judge Fallon granted the
motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs' claims for strict liability
nuisance under Louisiana Civil Code Article 667 and as to claims
filed by the subclass of Plaintiffs seeking solely emotional
damages, described in Paragraph 39(c) of the Complaint because
Plaintiffs claiming damages solely on the basis of their alleged
emotional distress cannot recover under Louisiana law.  The motion
is denied as to Plaintiffs' claims for emotional injuries stemming
from the alleged damage to their properties because the alleged
the release of black liquor presents a continuous nuisance.

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 -- and Kyle T. Del Hierro, Esq. --
kdelhierro@howardandreed.com -- HOWARD & REED

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


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Claims in Bolton Chemical Leak Suit Trimmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted in part Defendant's
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, JAMIA BOLTON, ET AL v.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL., SECTION "L" (5), Case No. 16-
13346 (E.D La.).

The class action case arose out of injuries allegedly sustained by
Jamia Bolton, et al, individually and collectively as a class
representative, on behalf of all other similarly situated class
members (Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendant,
International Paper Company, for failure to provide any 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
contend that the dispersal of the black liquor caused personal
injuries, property damage and/or emotional distress. Plaintiffs
also allege that the release of Black Liquor caused damage to Peal
River, its tributaries and Lake Pontchartrain. Plaintiffs argue
that Defendants are liable for Plaintiffs' damages.

In the motion, International Paper asserts that Plaintiff's case
should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted under FRCP 12(b)(6). Defendant claims that
Plaintiffs' do not allege sufficient facts to establish they are
entitled to legal relief on the basis of strict liability
nuisance. Defendant alleges that the release of black liquor did
not arise out of any "work" being done on the property, but
instead a single event. Further, Defendant contends that
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are neighbors of the
mill, as required under Louisiana Civil Code Article 667.

At oral argument, Plaintiffs adopted the joint omnibus opposition
filed by plaintiffs in the case, Slocum v. International Paper Co,
No. 16-12563, to Defendant's motions to dismiss. In the joint
omnibus opposition, Plaintiffs argue that their motion to remand
this case to state court should be granted. In the alternative,
Plaintiffs argue that the facts alleged in their complaints are
sufficient to defeat a Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss. Additionally, the Bolton Plaintiffs requested the Court's
permission to amend their Complaint.

In his Order and Reasons dated November 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/fZ92TW from Leagle.com, Judge Fallon held that
Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts that Defendant engaged in
such ultrahazardous activities, it cannot be strictly liable for
any nuisance it caused under Louisiana Civil Code Articles 667-
669. The Court found that the Plaintiffs' claims for nuisance
under the Civil Code vicinage articles survive the motion to
dismiss because they have alleged that the Defendant was engaged
in "work" at its paper plant, which caused a release of a noxious
substance into the air and Plaintiffs have stated claims under
Articles 2317 and 2317.1 that are facially plausible, and
therefore survive a motion to dismiss.

Bolton Plaintiffs have leave of Court to file an amended Complaint
within 30 days of the Order consistent with the ruling on the
motion to dismiss.

Jamia Bolton is represented by:

      Barry W. Bolton, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BARRY W. BOLTON
      1015 City Limit Rd.
      Bogalusa, LA 70427
      Tel: (985) 735-9093

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


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Court Narrows Claims in "Jarrell" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted in part Defendant
International Paper's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned,
JARRELL, ET AL., v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL., SECTION
"L" (5), Case No. 16-13793 (E.D. La.).

The class action case arose out of injuries allegedly sustained by
Plaintiffs Brent Jarrell, individually and on behalf of/and for
his minor child, Landon Jarrell, Junior Lydonis Rowell, Percy
Payne, Carl Spicer, spouse of/and Iantha Spicer, Joyce Spicer,
individually and on behalf of/and for her minor child, Brandon
Groober, individually and collectively as class representatives,
on behalf of all other similarly situated class members
(Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendant,
International Paper Company, for failure to provide any 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.

On June 10, 2015, the sight glass on an evaporator tank containing
black liquor ruptured at the Bogalusa Paper Mill, which resulted
in a stream of black liquor erupting several feet into the air and
dispersing into the atmosphere. The next day, Defendants advised
the media that there was a "slight leak" in a process unit that
led to the dispersal of diluted black liquor, but that Defendants
were "confident that there is no risk to human health or the
environment. Plaintiffs disagree and contend that the black liquor
dispersal caused personal injuries, property damage and/or
emotional distress, and argue that Defendants are liable for
Plaintiffs' damages.

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by International
Paper, which asserts that Plaintiffs' case should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under
FRCP 12(b)(6). Defendant also argues that certain subclasses of
Plaintiffs have no basis for recovery because the damages they
seek are not allowed under Louisiana law.

Plaintiffs filed a joint omnibus opposition to Defendant's motions
to dismiss. First, Plaintiffs argue that their motion to remand
this case to state court should be granted.  In doing so, they
restate much of the argument included in the motion to remand,
including the argument that the case should be remanded because it
is unlikely to be certified as a class. Additionally, Plaintiffs
argue the case should be remanded because the LDEQ is a defendant,
and extending federal jurisdiction over a state entity would
violate sovereign immunity. Finally, Plaintiffs aver that the case
involves local, rather than national issues, and therefore the
Court should exercise discretionary abstention under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(3).

In the alternative, Plaintiffs argue that the facts alleged in
their complaints are sufficient to defeat a 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss.

In his Order and Reasons dated November 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/m8cUdt from Leagle.com, Judge Fallon granted the
motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs claims for strict liability
nuisance under Louisiana Civil Code Article 667 and as to claims
filed by the subclass of Plaintiffs seeking solely emotional
damages, described in Paragraph 39(c) of the Complaint because
Plaintiffs claiming damages solely on the basis of their alleged
emotional distress cannot recover under Louisiana law; and denied
as to Plaintiffs' claims for emotional injuries stemming from the
alleged damage to their properties because the alleged the release
of black liquor presents a continuous nuisance.

Brent Jarrell, et al. are represented by:

      William Harrell Arata, Esq.
      ARATA & ARATA
      216 Austin St.
      Bogalusa, LA 70427
      Tel: (985)200-0098

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


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Court Narrows Claims in "Sanders" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted in part Defendant
International Paper's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned,
JEVONE SANDERS, ET AL., v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL.,
SECTION "L" (1), Case No. 16-12567 (E.D. La.).

The class action case arose out of injuries allegedly sustained by
Plaintiffs Derrick Jevone Sanders, Patricia McGowan Lewis, and
Dione Evette Peters individually, and collectively as class
representatives, on behalf of all other similarly situated class
members (Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendant,
International Paper Company, for failure to provide any 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.

On June 10, 2015, the sight glass on an evaporator tank containing
black liquor ruptured at the Bogalusa Paper Mill, which resulted
in a stream of black liquor erupting several feet into the air and
dispersing into the atmosphere. The next day, Defendants advised
the media that there was a "slight leak" in a process unit that
led to the dispersal of diluted black liquor, but that Defendants
were "confident that there is no risk to human health or the
environment. Plaintiffs disagree and contend that the black liquor
dispersal caused personal injuries, property damage and/or
emotional distress, and argue that Defendants are liable for
Plaintiffs' damages.

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by International
Paper, which asserts that Plaintiffs' case should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under
FRCP 12(b)(6). Defendant also argues that certain subclasses of
Plaintiffs have no basis for recovery because the damages they
seek are not allowed under Louisiana law.

Plaintiffs filed a joint omnibus opposition to Defendant's motions
to dismiss. First, Plaintiffs argue that their motion to remand
this case to state court should be granted.  In doing so, they
restate much of the argument included in the motion to remand,
including the argument that the case should be remanded because it
is unlikely to be certified as a class. Additionally, Plaintiffs
argue the case should be remanded because the LDEQ is a defendant,
and extending federal jurisdiction over a state entity would
violate sovereign immunity. Finally, Plaintiffs aver that the case
involves local, rather than national issues, and therefore the
Court should exercise discretionary abstention under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(3).

In his Order and Reasons dated November 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/0ooFIN from Leagle.com, Judge Fallon granted the
motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs' claims for strict liability
nuisance under Louisiana Civil Code Article 667 and as to claims
filed by the subclass of Plaintiffs seeking solely emotional
damages, described in Paragraph 42(c) of the Complaint because
Plaintiffs claiming damages solely on the basis of their alleged
emotional distress cannot recover under Louisiana law; and denied
as to Plaintiffs' claims for emotional injuries stemming from the
alleged damage to their properties because the alleged the release
of black liquor presents a continuous nuisance.

Derrick Jevone Sanders, et al. are represented by:

      Thomas Massa Discon, Esq.
      Charlotte Elizabeth Discon, Esq.
      Scott Greaves Discon, Esq.
      DISCON LAW FIRM
      424 N. Causeway Blvd. Suite A
      Mandeville, LA 70448
      Tel: (800)690-6435

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


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Court Rejects Motion to Stay "Cashon" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALERIE CASHON, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; GENTIVA CERTIFIED HEALTHCARE CORP.,
a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 15 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-04889-RS (N.D. Cal.), District Judge
Richard Seeborg denied the Defendants' motion to stay, without
prejudice. Likewise, Judge Seeborg advised the Defendants to renew
their motion if the Supreme Court grants certiorari in the case,
Morris v. Ernst & Young, 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016), or in any
of the related cases.

The class action involves the alleged labor violations of the
Defendants, who argued that the Plaintiff had entered into a
mandatory arbitration agreement that precludes class action suits.
The Defendants moved to stay the case pending the Supreme Court's
decision on whether it will resolve a circuit split regarding such
arbitration agreements.

The Court ruled that the Defendants' motion is stay is untenable.
The Defendants have made no showing that the Supreme Court is
likely to grant certiorari in Morris or similar cases from other
circuits. Although the motion to stay will cause injury to the
Defendants for spending time and money litigating the claims, a
stay will further deprive the Plaintiff and other plaintiffs the
relief allegedly owed to them. Moreover, the Defendants failed to
provide reason why the public interest weighs in favor of a stay.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 9, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/8MxDcS from Leagle.com.

Valerie Cashon, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Marie Whitehead
-- mwhitehead@weintraub.com -- Weintraub. Tobin.

Valerie Cashon, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Martin Perez,
Jr. -- aperez@perezlawoffices.com -- Perez Law Offices & Brendan
J. Begley -- bbegley@weintraub.com -- Weintraub Genshlea Chediak.

Kindred Healthcare Operating Inc., et al., Defendants, represented
by Michael E. Brewer -- mbrewer@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
P.C., Alison Jacquelyn Cubre -- acubre@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Angelo Spinola -- aspinola@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C. & Lisa Lin Garcia -- llgarcia@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson.


KRISPY KREME: Faces Class Suit Over Doughnuts
---------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action
claims in Los Angeles, Krispy Kreme Doughnuts sells raspberry,
blueberry and maple doughnuts that do not contain raspberries,
blueberries or maple syrup.


LINARDI CONSTRUCTION: "Concepcion" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS RAUL LUGO CONCEPCION and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs. LINARDI CONSTRUCTION SERVICES,
INC., GABRIEL M LINARDI, DANIEL PEREZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-24736-FAM (S.D. Fla., November 14, 2016), seeks to recover
overtime wages pursuant to The Fair Labor Standards Act.

LINARDI CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. --
http://linardiconstruction.com/-- is in the single-family housing
construction business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


LKQ CORPORATION: "Pinson" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS PINSON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. LKQ CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-02801 (D. Col., Nov. 17, 2016), seeks all available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is employed by Defendant
as an Assistant Plant Manager at the Self-Service Facility located
at 6100 North Federal Boulevard, Denver, CO 80221. The Plaintiff,
like other Assistant Plant Managers, is regularly scheduled to
work over 40 hours per week. In fact, Plaintiff typically is
scheduled to work 45 hours per week. The Plaintiff, like other
Assistant Plant Managers, regularly works over 40 hours per week.
In fact, Plaintiff works over 50 hours during a typical week. The
Plaintiff, like other Assistant Plant Managers, does not receive
any overtime premium compensation for hours worked over 40 per
week. The Defendant has acted willfully and with reckless
disregard of clearly applicable FLSA provisions by failing to pay
overtime premium compensation to Plaintiff and other Assistant
Plant Managers.

The Defendant is a global distributor of vehicle products,
including replacement parts, components and systems used in the
repair and maintenance of vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884 2491
          E-mail: PWinebrake@WinebrakeLaw.com
                  ASantillo@WinebrakeLaw.com
                  MGottesfeld@WinebrakeLaw.com


LOBEL'S OF NEW YORK: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Cristhian Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lobel's of New York, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-06349
(E.D.N.Y., November 15, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Lobel's of New York, LLC own and operate a butcher shop in
Manhattan, New York.

Cristhian Diaz is a pro se plaintiff.


LUDLOW MUSIC: Judge Allows Copyright Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Library of Congress has called "We Shall Overcome" the "most
powerful song of the 20th century" -- but a federal judge in
Manhattan, advanced claims that two record labels may have
defrauded the U.S. Copyright Office in claiming ownership over the
civil-rights anthem.

The ruling marks the first victory for the producer of the 2013
film, "The Butler," and the We Shall Overcome Foundation, the
California-based nonprofit group at the forefront of the class
action lawsuit filed against the Richmond Organization and Ludlow
Music in April.

The foundation hopes to use "We Shall Overcome" in a documentary
about the history and origins of the anthem.

"Without the song, they can't do the film," the plaintiffs'
attorney, Mark Rifkin, said in a phone interview.

Hoping to dissolve the song's 1960 and 1963 registered copyrights,
the duo retained attorneys from Wolf Haldenstein Alder Freeeman &
Herz -- the same law firm that liberated "Happy Birthday" last
year.

Rifkin is a partner in the firm, which may be on track for a
similar success in this case, since November 17, ruling accepted
their argument that the copyright-owning record labels misled the
government.

"An allegation that an applicant for a copyright engaged in fraud
is a serious matter," the 33-page opinion, filed in the Southern
District of New York, states. "It is the Copyright Office that
determines whether a filer has complied with the technical
requirements for a registration certificate."

But U.S. District Judge Denise Cote found that the filmmaker and
the foundation "plausibly alleged" such a case.

According to the lawsuit, the labels scrubbed all references to
public domain spiritual versions of "I Shall Overcome" and "We
Shall Overcome" on their copyright application, and they cited
"I'll Overcome" as the derivative work.

"These allegations of fraud are sufficiently specific, and provide
enough information from which to infer the requisite intent, to
survive a motion to dismiss," Cote wrote.

Rifkin said he was "delighted" by the judge's decision.

"The song itself is a song of hope, and a song of freedom, and it
is no small irony that it has taken 21st century lawyers to free a
late-19th century or early-20th century African-American
spiritual," he said.

Rifkin urged the public to see the human toll behind the
intellectual property suit.

"The misuse of a copyright has profound human consequence for
these two clients and generally for the public," he said.

In addition to "Happy Birthday" and "We Shall Overcome," Rifkin's
firm is also trying to deliver Woody Guthrie's "This Land is Your
Land" to the people.

In the lawsuit at hand, only the federal claims will proceed to
discovery, as Cote dismissed the state law claims.

"We are extremely pleased that the state law claims were
dismissed, and are very confident that on the full record the
validity of the copyright will be upheld," Paul LiCalsi, an
attorney for the record companies, said in an email. "The song is
a protected derivative work that was validly registered with the
Copyright Office."

LiCalsi -- PLiCalsi@RobinsKaplan.com -- is a partner with Robins
Kaplan LLP out of New York City.


MCCORMICK & CO: Judge Narrows Claims in Pepper Practices Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Bittner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in Richmond, Va., dismissed part of a Sherman Act
suit against McCormick & Company that accuses the spice
manufacturer of colluding with retailers to cheat consumers buying
its pepper products, but said others need more time to be
addressed.

Plaintiffs in several states filed class actions against McCormick
& Company and their cases were eventually consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

What all the cases had in common was they were based on claims
that McCormick agreed with Wal-Mart and other retailers to reduce
the weight of pepper in store-branded containers supplied by the
manufacturer at the same time that it reduced the weight for
containers bearing its own brand name.

The plaintiffs went on to claim that McCormick and the retailers
not only agreed on the weight of pepper in their containers but
also agreed on a set retail price.

In addition to those cases, an additional lawsuit, filed by
McCormick's competitor Watkins, was also consolidated with the
consumer cases.

Watkins claimed that as a result of the deceptive practices
alleged by the consumers, it had lost a considerable amount of
sales.

The allegations all rely in part on an industry tradition of
selling black pepper in closed containers. The consumers claim
that because they couldn't see into the containers to see just how
much pepper was inside, it was easy for the manufacturer to ship
the same container with markedly less pepper inside.

After the cases were consolidated, McCormick moved for dismissal,
and on Nov. 11, U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, granted
its motion in part, while also denying it in part.

Where Huvelle disagreed with the plaintiffs was on the question of
alleged price-fixing.

The plaintiffs' complaint, she wrote, "fails to plausibly suggest
an agreement between McCormick and Wal-Mart or any other retailer
to fix retail prices. In the language of Twombly [Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly], there is an "obvious alternative explanation"
for the continuity in retail prices that does not require any
agreement."

Judge Huvelle goes on to explain the "natural explanation" is that
"McCormick maintained its wholesale prices when it reduced the
fill level of pepper to offset the increased cost of raw pepper,
and retailers, in turn, maintained their retail prices to preserve
their usual allowance for operating costs and their traditional
profit margin."

"Retailers could well have expected that most consumers would be
insensitive to the precise amount of pepper in a container and
therefore willing to pay the same retail prices as before,"
Huvelle  said. "Retailers could also have expected their
competitors to reach the same conclusions, and therefore, they did
not worry that they needed to reduce their traditional profit
margins in order to avoid being undercut by their competitors."

"Plaintiffs have offered no basis for rejecting this logical and
lawful explanation," the judge noted.

Huvelle also found the plaintiffs alleged no facts to suggest
McCormick and the retailers had acted in any way contrary to how
they would have independent of each other.

Finally, she said, the plaintiff consumers had simply failed to
come up with any possible motive for McCormick and the retailers
to collude on price.

"In sum, the complaint fails to plausibly suggest an agreement on
prices because there is an obvious lawful explanation for the
observed prices, no allegations of specific communications that
suggest agreement, no allegations that defendants were acting
against their independent economic self-interest, and no alleged
motivations for defendants to make an agreement on price," Huvelle
wrote.

Despite this, the judge concluded that additional fact-finding
needs to occur before a decision on the plaintiffs' other claims -
- of consumer injury and unjust enrichment of the defendants --
could be made.

McCormick contended that no class could be certified on the injury
issue because "the alleged injury depends on individual consumers'
state of mind at the time they purchased the pepper."

But Huvelle said she found McCormick's argument unpersuasive, at
least until additional briefs are filed pertaining to case law on
the issue in the states in which the lawsuits originated.

Likewise, she said, "It seems likely that plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claims against McCormick and Wal-Mart will require
individualized factual inquiries that bar class treatment."


METLIFE INC: To Defend Against Westland Police Suit
---------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 defendants
intend to defend vigorously the case, City of Westland Police and
Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed
January 12, 2012).

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011,
the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint alleging that
MetLife, Inc. and several current and former directors and
executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of
1933 ("Securities Act"), as well as the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing
MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements
concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of
dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.


METLIFE INC: Approval of Birmingham Case Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 Plaintiff is
seeking court approval of the settlement in the case, City of
Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al.
(Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, filed July 5, 2012).

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in
March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife,
Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers
of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several
provisions of the Securities Act related to the filing of the
registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of
dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On October 14,
2015, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint. On October 28, 2016, the parties signed a stipulation
of settlement agreeing to resolve this action.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Owens" TCA Litigation
-------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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
continues to defend against the case, Owens v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
all persons for whom MLIC established a retained asset account,
known as a Total Control Accounts, to pay death benefits under an
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") plan.
The action alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement
option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance
policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA. As damages,
plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on
accounts owned by members of the putative class. On September 27,
2016, the court denied MLIC's summary judgment motion in full and
granted plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion. The Company
intends to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: "Robainas" Class Action Appeal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 Plaintiffs' appeal
in the case, Robainas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), remains pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by MLIC from 2009 through 2014 (the "Policies").
Two similar actions were subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015) and International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015). Both
of these actions were consolidated with the Robainas action.

The consolidated complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately
disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain
reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies
were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and
thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the
adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit sought recovery under
Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty
in the amount of the premiums paid for the Policies.

On October 9, 2015, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, finding that plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing because they did not allege any concrete injury as a
result of the alleged conduct. Plaintiffs appealed this decision
to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Intoccia" Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 appeal in the
case, Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y.,
April 20, 2015), remains pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed
Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts
with MLIC from 2009 through 2015 (the "Annuities"). The court
consolidated Weilert v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y.,
April 30, 2015) with the Intoccia case, and the consolidated,
amended complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its
statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions
with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using
"contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly
misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its
reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New
York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the
premiums paid for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to
the Annuities. The Court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss,
adopting the reasoning of the Robainas decision. Plaintiffs
appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.


METLIFE INC: Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied
------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 Illinois
Supreme Court has denied an objector's petition for leave to
appeal in the case, Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County,
Ill., July 3, 2014).

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants, including MLIC
and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging
that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to
plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227. The court issued a final order certifying a
nationwide settlement class and approving a settlement under which
MLIC has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to
fax advertisements sent between August 23, 2008 and August 7,
2014.

On March 23, 2016, the intermediate appellate court affirmed the
trial court's order. On September 28, 2016, the Illinois Supreme
Court denied an objector's petition for leave to appeal.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Voshall" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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
intends to defend against the case, Voshall v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in
California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff
alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of
living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer
retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit
payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action
for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business &
Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: "Martin" Plaintiff Files Appeal
--------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 Plaintiff in
the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, (Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, filed
December 17, 2015), has appealed a ruling.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium
loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that
MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound
interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the
borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes
an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiff
asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount. On
April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs have filed a notice appealing this ruling.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Lau" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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
intends to defend against the case, Lau v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y. filed, December 3, 2015).

This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined
contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose
assets were invested in MetLife's "Group Annuity Contract Stable
Value Funds" within the past six years. The suit alleges breaches
of fiduciary duty under ERISA and challenges the "spread" with
respect to the stable value fund group annuity products sold to
retirement plans. The allegations focus on the methodology MetLife
uses to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under
which plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a
stable value option to another investment option, the procedures
followed if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of
disclosure provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as damages in an unspecified amount. The Company
intends to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Newman" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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
intends to defend against the case, Newman v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
based on MLIC's class-wide increase in premiums charged for long-
term care insurance policies. Plaintiff alleges a class consisting
of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay
at Age 65 payment feature and whose premium rates were increased
after age 65. Plaintiff asserts that premiums could not be
increased for these class members and/or that marketing material
was misleading as to MLIC's right to increase premiums. Plaintiff
seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive damages as
well as recessionary and injunctive relief. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.


MICHIGAN BEACH: "Gillian" Suit Seeks to Stop "Illegal" Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
RENITA GILLIAN, individually and as a representative of a class of
similarly situated and aggrieved persons, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN
BEACH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a foreign limited liability company and
SANDAL WOOD MANAGEMENT, INC., a foreign corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 2016CH14672 (Ill. Circ., Cook County,
November 9, 2016), seeks to enjoin Defendants from assessing pest
control contractors' charges, like the Let Us Protect Charges,
(and associated late charges) to tenants.

The Defendant owned and managed a rental apartment building
commonly known and doing business as Michigan Beach Apartment
Homes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hall Adams, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF HALL ADAMS
     33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 2350
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: 312/445-4900


MITEL NETWORKS: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Mitel Networks 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 Court of
Chancery has entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the
parties' settlement of the consolidated class action.

The Company said, "In March and April, 2015, we were named a
defendant in three purported stockholder class actions, two of
which were consolidated, that challenged the acquisition of
Mavenir. Specifically, two stockholder actions challenging the
acquisition of Mavenir -- styled Nakoa v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No.
10757-VCP and Turberg v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No. 10779-VCP -- were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 5 and 11, 2015,
respectively."

"On March 23, 2015, the Court of Chancery entered an order
consolidating these two complaints under the caption In re Mavenir
Systems, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 10757-VCP.
On April 22, 2015, a Mavenir stockholder filed a separate
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery in an action styled
Isabel S. Rivera Cruz v. Mitel Networks Corporation, et al., C.A.
No. 10936-VCP. The plaintiff in the Cruz action did not effect
service of the complaint on the Company or any other named
defendant. These stockholder complaints alleged, in part, that
Mavenir's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the acquisition of Mavenir, and that we aided and abetted
such alleged fiduciary breaches.

"On September 14, 2015 and January 22, 2016, the lead plaintiff in
the consolidated action filed amended complaints, neither of which
named us as a defendant. The operative complaint in the
consolidated action, filed on January 22, 2016, named our
subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir as a defendant. That
complaint asserted a single cause of action against our subsidiary
formerly known as Mavenir for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty
relating to certain disclosures made to former Mavenir
shareholders in connection with the acquisition of Mavenir. None
of the complaints stated any amount of damages.

"On April 6, 2016, the parties to the consolidated action entered
into a settlement term sheet which contemplated the settlement of
the consolidated action and the release of various persons and
entities, including but not limited to the Company and the
defendants in the consolidated action (including our subsidiary
formerly known as Mavenir), in consideration for which defendants
and their insurer(s) would cause the sum of $3 million to be paid
into a common fund for the class.

"Also on April 6, 2016, the parties to the consolidated action
entered into a stipulation and proposed order regarding the
payment of mootness attorneys' fees to counsel for the plaintiffs
in the consolidated action, pertaining to certain claims mooted at
an earlier stage of the consolidated action. The Court of Chancery
granted that proposed order on April 8, 2016. The parties to the
consolidated action subsequently negotiated a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release, which encompassed
the terms contained in the term sheet and was filed with the Court
of Chancery on June 29, 2016.

"On October 12, 2016, the Court of Chancery entered an Order and
Final Judgment approving the parties' settlement of the
consolidated action. The Order and Final Judgment remains subject
to appeal for a period of thirty days.

"Subsequently, on October 18, 2016, the plaintiff in the Cruz
action filed a notice voluntarily dismissing that action without
prejudice.

"Our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir has indemnified the
former directors of Mavenir who are defendants in the lawsuits. We
continue to believe that the allegations in all of the complaints
are without merit. Although we do not believe such litigation will
have a material impact on our financial condition or results of
operations, we cannot predict with certainty any such impact and
whether the Court of Chancery's Order and Final Judgment will be
appealed or the outcome of any such appeal."


MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel Zitronenbaum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn LLP, Case
No. 1:16-cv-06343 (E.D.N.Y., November 15, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn LLP operates a law firm at 6851
Jericho Tpke #220, Syosset, NY 11791.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
      735 Central Avenue
      Woodmere, NY 11598
      Telephone: (516) 668-6945
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Vassar Questions Rules on Players' Transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN VASSAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:16-cv-10590 (N.D. Ill.,
November 14, 2016), challenges the NCAA rules that prevent
Division I basketball players from transferring to other NCAA
Division I schools, and from playing immediately without losing
athletic eligibility for a year.

Mr. Vassar, an NCAA men's basketball player, joined Northwestern
starting with the 2014-15 academic year and basketball season.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is an unincorporated
association that acts as the governing body of college sports.
The NCAA and its member institutions, including the Northwestern
University, operate pursuant to an agreed set of "Bylaws," some of
which operate to restrict the freedom of student athletes in
violation of antitrust law.  The restrictions at issue here
involve an agreement between and among the NCAA and its member
institutions to restrict the ability of an NCAA student athlete to
freely transfer schools.

The NCAA's limitation on the mobility of college athletes is
patently unlawful, the Plaintiff contends.  Hence, the Plaintiff
seeks a declaration that the NCAA's restriction on players'
ability to transfer without loss of athletic eligibility is
unlawful.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

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


NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Bid to Permanently Enjoin "Dryer" Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul A. Magnuson denied the motion for permanent injunction
filed by Hausfeld LLP which sought to enjoin a Minnesota state-
court lawsuit initiated by Bob Stein LLC and Ward & Ward PLLC, two
other plaintiffs' law firms.

The case is John Frederick Dryer, James Lawrence Marshall, Joseph
Michael Senser, Elvin Lamont Bethea, Dante Anthony Pastorini,
Edward Alvin White, Fred Lee Barnett, Tracy Anthony Simien,
Darrell Alexander Thompson, Jim Ray Smith, Irvin Acie Cross, Bruce
Allan Laird, Brian Duncan, Reginald Joseph Rucker, Billy Joe
Dupree, Mark Gregory Clayton, Preston Pearson, Reginald McKenzie,
Joseph Barney Lemuel, Jackie Larue Smith, Paul James Krause, James
Nathaniel Brown, and Michael James Haynes, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National
Football League, Defendant, Case No. 09-cv-2182 (PAM/FLN) (D.
Minn.).

After the settlement between the plaintiffs and the National
Football League (NFL) was granted final approval, Magistrate Judge
Boylan awarded a total of $6,200,000 in attorneys' fees to seven
different law firms.  Stein received $445,000, Ward received
$525,000, and Hausfeld received $650,000.  Stein objected to
Magistrate Judge Boylan's Order, arguing that the fees allocated
to Stein and Ward were too low, but the objections were overruled.
In March 2016, the Court ordered the attorneys' fees be
distributed.

On August 25, 2016, Ward and Stein filed their lawsuit against
Hausfeld in Minnesota state court.  The complaint alleged that
Stein and Ward entered into an agreement with Hausfeld to jointly
represent the plaintiffs.  It further alleged that the agreement
required Hausfeld to pay Stein and Ward 10% of the attorneys' fees
awarded in the case, and that Hausfeld has failed to pay that
amount.  Along with the breach-of-contract claim, Stein and Ward's
other claims included promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment,
quantum meruit, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, civil theft,
and fraudulent misrepresentation.

On September 16, 2016, Hausfeld filed the motion for permanent
injunction.  Hausfeld argued that Stein and Ward are attempting to
relitigate in state court the Court's allocation of attorneys'
fees, and that the Court may properly enjoin that proceeding under
the "necessary in aid of its jurisdiction" and "relitigation"
exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act.

The "necessary in aid of its jurisdiction" exception to the Anti-
Injunction Act applies when it may be "necessary to prevent a
state court from so interfering with a federal court's
consideration or disposition of a case as to seriously impair the
federal court's flexibility and authority to decide that case."

Hausfeld argued that because the Court has exercised jurisdiction
over the litigation for the past seven years, the Court retains
ancillary jurisdiction to effectuate its decrees, including
jurisdiction over attorneys' fee disputes.

Judge Magnuson, however, emphasized that Stein and Ward's claims
are with co-counsel, not the plaintiffs or the NFL, and that they
have merely sued their co-counsel for allegedly breaching a fee-
sharing agreement.  The judge held that a state court deciding
that issue will not infringe on the Court's jurisdiction.

The "relitigation" exception to the Anti-Injunction Act was
"designed to permit a federal court to prevent state litigation of
an issue that previously was presented to and decided by the
federal court.  It is founded in the well-recognized concepts of
res judicata and collateral estoppel."

Judge Magnuson explained that the Eighth Circuit has held that the
relitigation exception's incorporation of res judicata and
collateral estoppel extends only to those claims actually
litigated in federal court, not to claims which could have been
litigated in that forum.  The judge pointed out that Stein and
Ward did not litigate their breach-of-contract claim against
Hausfeld in federal court.

Next, Hausfeld argued that the relitigation exception applies
because Stein and Ward's "claim to an additional percentage from
Hausfeld could have been made at any time, and certainly should
have been made at the time this Court was deciding whether to
approve Magistrate Judge Boylan's recommendations."

Judge Magnuson held that whether Stein and Ward had ample
opportunity to discuss the alleged fee-sharing agreement with
Magistrate Judge Boylan is immaterial.  The judge pointed out that
Stein and Ward's breach-of-contract claim is a separate
proceeding, with different parties, about a distinct issue, and
that it has nothing to do with the award of attorneys' fees in the
case except to provide the "data to calculate the amount" that
Hausfeld allegedly owes.

Finally, Hausfeld cited a number of cases from other jurisdictions
where federal courts have enjoined state-court proceedings
involving attorneys' fee disputes.  Judge Magnuson found that all
of them are distinguishable from this case.

In summary, Judge Magnuson concluded that the "necessary in aid of
its jurisdiction" and "relitigation" exceptions to the Anti-
Injunction Act do not apply because Stein and Ward's state-court
lawsuit involves a separate breach-of-contract claim that will not
disturb the Court's award of attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of Judge Magnuson's November 7, 2016 memorandum
and order is available at https://is.gd/EFrbOv from Leagle.com.

John Frederick Dryer, Edward Alvin White, Plaintiffs, represented
by Aaron R. Fahrenkrog -- afahrenkrog@robinskaplan.com -- Robins
Kaplan LLP, Brian C. Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -
- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Charles S. Zimmerman --
charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, LLP, Daniel S.
Mason, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel S.
Ward -- dan@wardlawdc.com -- Ward & Ward, PLLC, pro hac vice, J.
Gordon Rudd, Jr. -- gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed,
PLLP, James J. Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld
LLP, pro hac vice, Jan M. Conlin -- jmc@ciresiconlin.com -- Ciresi
Conlin LLP, Jeffrey S. Gleason -- jgleason@robinskaplan.com --
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, pro hac vice, Mark J. Feinberg
-- mfeinber@zelle.com -- Zelle LLP, Mark D. Passin --
mpassin@robinskaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, pro
hac vice, Mathew R. Korte -- mrk@ciresiconlin.com -- Ciresi Conlin
LLP, Michael V. Ciresi -- mvc@ciresiconlin.com -- Ciresi Conlin
LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld -- mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael P. Lehmann -- mlehmann@hausfeld.com --
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Stein --
rstein@steinlawpllc.com -- Bob Stein LLC, Shawn D. Stuckey, All
Sports Law, Thomas C. Mahlum -- tmahlum@robinskaplan.com -- Robins
Kaplan LLP, Thomas J. Ward -- tom@wardlawdc.com -- Ward & Ward,
PLLC, pro hac vice & William Bornstein --
wbornstein@robinskaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP.

James Lawrence Marshall, Dante Anthony Pastorini, Plaintiffs,
represented by Aaron R. Fahrenkrog, Robins Kaplan LLP, Brian C.
Gudmundson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Charles S. Zimmerman, Zimmerman
Reed, LLP, Daniel S. Mason, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, pro
hac vice, Daniel S. Ward, Ward & Ward, PLLC, pro hac vice, J.
Gordon Rudd, Jr., Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, James J. Pizzirusso,
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Jan M. Conlin, Ciresi Conlin LLP,
Jeffrey S. Gleason, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, pro hac
vice, Jeffrey Sullivan Gleason, Robins Kaplan LLP, Mark J.
Feinberg, Zelle LLP, Michael V. Ciresi, Ciresi Conlin LLP, Michael
D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Michael P. Lehmann,
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Stein, Bob Stein LLC, Shawn
D. Stuckey, All Sports Law, Thomas C. Mahlum, Robins Kaplan LLP,
Thomas J. Ward, Ward & Ward, PLLC, pro hac vice & William
Bornstein, Robins Kaplan LLP.

Joseph Michael Senser, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron R.
Fahrenkrog, Robins Kaplan LLP, Brian C. Gudmundson, Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP, Charles S. Zimmerman, Zimmerman Reed, LLP, Daniel S.
Mason, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel S.
Ward, Ward & Ward, PLLC, pro hac vice, J. Gordon Rudd, Jr.,
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac
vice, Jan M. Conlin, Ciresi Conlin LLP, Jeffrey Sullivan Gleason,
Robins Kaplan LLP, Mark J. Feinberg, Zelle LLP, Michael V. Ciresi,
Ciresi Conlin LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael P. Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A.
Stein, Bob Stein LLC, Shawn D. Stuckey, All Sports Law, Thomas C.
Mahlum, Robins Kaplan LLP, Thomas J. Ward, Ward & Ward, PLLC, pro
hac vice & William Bornstein, Robins Kaplan LLP.

Elvin Lamont Bethea, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron R.
Fahrenkrog, Robins Kaplan LLP, Brian C. Gudmundson, Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP, Charles S. Zimmerman, Zimmerman Reed, LLP, Daniel S.
Mason, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel S.
Ward, Ward & Ward, PLLC, pro hac vice, J. Gordon Rudd, Jr.,
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac
vice, Jan M. Conlin, Ciresi Conlin LLP, Jeffrey Sullivan Gleason,
Robins Kaplan LLP, Mark J. Feinberg, Zelle LLP, Mark D. Passin,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, pro hac vice, Mathew R. Korte,
Ciresi Conlin LLP, Michael V. Ciresi, Ciresi Conlin LLP, Michael
D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Michael P. Lehmann,
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Stein, Bob Stein LLC, Shawn
D. Stuckey, All Sports Law, Thomas C. Mahlum, Robins Kaplan LLP,
Thomas J. Ward, Ward & Ward, PLLC, pro hac vice & William
Bornstein, Robins Kaplan LLP.

Fred Barnett, Darrell Alexander Thompson, Plaintiffs, represented
by Brian C. Gudmundson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Charles S.
Zimmerman, Zimmerman Reed, LLP, Daniel S. Mason, Zelle Hofmann
Voelbel & Mason LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel S. Ward, Ward & Ward,
PLLC, pro hac vice, J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Zimmerman Reed, PLLP,
James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Sullivan
Gleason, Robins Kaplan LLP, Mark J. Feinberg, Zelle LLP, Michael
D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Michael P. Lehmann,
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Stein, Bob Stein LLC, Shawn
D. Stuckey, All Sports Law & Thomas J. Ward, Ward & Ward, PLLC,
pro hac vice.

Tracy Simien, Plaintiff, represented by Brian C. Gudmundson,
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Charles S. Zimmerman, Zimmerman Reed, LLP,
Daniel S. Mason, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, pro hac vice,
Daniel S. Ward, Ward & Ward, PLLC, pro hac vice, J. Gordon Rudd,
Jr., Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro
hac vice, Jeffrey S. Gleason, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP,
pro hac vice, Jeffrey Sullivan Gleason, Robins Kaplan LLP, Mark J.
Feinberg, Zelle LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael P. Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A.
Stein, Bob Stein LLC, Shawn D. Stuckey, All Sports Law & Thomas J.
Ward, Ward & Ward, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Jim Ray Smith, Irvin Acie Cross, Bruce Allan Laird, Billy Joe
Dupree, Mark Gregory Clayton, Reginald McKenzie, Paul James
Krause, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson
Gluek PLLC, Daniel S. Ward, Ward & Ward, PLLC, pro hac vice, J.
Gordon Rudd, Jr., Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, James J. Pizzirusso,
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Sullivan Gleason, Robins
Kaplan LLP, Mark J. Feinberg, Zelle LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld,
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Stein, Bob Stein LLC & Shawn
D. Stuckey, All Sports Law.

Brian Duncan, Joseph Barney Lemuel, Plaintiffs, represented by
Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, J. Gordon Rudd, Jr.,
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac
vice, Jeffrey Sullivan Gleason, Robins Kaplan LLP, Mark J.
Feinberg, Zelle LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac
vice, Robert A. Stein, Bob Stein LLC, Shawn D. Stuckey, All Sports
Law & Thomas J. Ward, Ward & Ward, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Reginald Joseph Rucker, Michael James Haynes, Plaintiffs,
represented by Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel
S. Ward, Ward & Ward, PLLC, pro hac vice, J. Gordon Rudd, Jr.,
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac
vice, Jeffrey S. Gleason, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, pro
hac vice, Jeffrey Sullivan Gleason, Robins Kaplan LLP, Mark J.
Feinberg, Zelle LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac
vice, Robert A. Stein, Bob Stein LLC & Shawn D. Stuckey, All
Sports Law.

Preston Pearson, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Gustafson,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel S. Ward, Ward & Ward, PLLC, pro hac
vice, J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, James J.
Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Sullivan Gleason,
Robins Kaplan LLP, Mark J. Feinberg, Zelle LLP, Michael D.
Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Stein, Bob Stein
LLC, Shawn D. Stuckey, All Sports Law & Thomas J. Ward, Ward &
Ward, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Jackie Larue Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Gustafson,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Zimmerman Reed, PLLP,
James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Sullivan
Gleason, Robins Kaplan LLP, Mark J. Feinberg, Zelle LLP, Michael
D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice & Robert A. Stein, Bob
Stein LLC.

James Nathaniel Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E.
Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Jeffrey Sullivan Gleason, Robins
Kaplan LLP, Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Shawn
D. Stuckey, All Sports Law & Thomas J. Ward, Ward & Ward, PLLC,
pro hac vice.

Robert Stein, Appellant, represented by Paul D. Peterson, Harper &
Peterson, PLLC & Robert A. Stein, Bob Stein LLC.

National Football League, Defendant, represented by Aaron D. Van
Oort, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Bruce P. Keller, U.S. Attorney's
Office, pro hac vice, Daniel J. Connolly, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP, David J.F. Gross, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Eileen M. Hunter,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Michael Schaper, Debevoise & Plimpton,
LLP, pro hac vice.

Bob Stein LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert A. Stein, Bob
Stein LLC & William D. Harper, Harper & Peterson, PLLC.

Zimmerman Reed PLLP, Movant, represented by J. Gordon Rudd, Jr.,
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP.

Hausfeld LLP, Movant, represented by Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld
LLP & Thomas C. Atmore, Leonard, O'Brien, Spencer, Gale & Sayre,
Ltd.


NATIONAL GENERAL: Faces "Archamdeau" Suit in W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against National General
Holdings Corp. d/b/a National General Insurance Company.

The case is captioned Linda Archamdeau, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. National General Holdings
Corp. d/b/a National General Insurance Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01766 (W.D. Wash., November 15, 2016).

National General Holdings Corp. operates a property and casualty
insurance company headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin M. Hastings, Esq.
      Darrell L. Cochran, Esq.
      PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC
      911 Pacific Ave, Ste 200
      Tacoma, WA 98402
      Telephone: (253) 617-0270
      E-mail: kevin@pcvalaw.com
              darrell@pcvalaw.com


ONEAZ CREDIT: Sued by Koon for Not Paying Proper OT Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS H. KOON and STEVEN J. ROSS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. ONEAZ CREDIT UNION, F/K/A ARIZONA
STATE CREDIT UNION, a state-chartered credit union, Case No. 2:16-
cv-03939-JWS (D. Ariz., November 14, 2016), challenges the
Company's policies and practices of failing to pay its mortgage
loan officers at the proper overtime rate for all overtime hours
worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

OneAZ, established in 1972, is a state-chartered credit union
owned by its 138,000 members.  OneAZ provides banking, loan and
credit card services to its members, who enjoy more favorable
interest rates and lower fees based upon the Defendant's
profitability.  OneAZ operates 20 branch offices solely within
Arizona, and employs approximately 424 full-time employees and 46
part-time employees.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Finley, Esq.
          Patrick J. Van Zanen, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
          Scottsdale, AZ 85253
          Telephone: (480) 428-0143
          Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
          E-mail: jfinley@schneiderwallace.com
                  pvanzanen@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Nicole N. Coon, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  ncoon@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Stephen F. Banta, Esq.
          ANDERSON BANTA CLARKSON PLLC
          48 North MacDonald
          Mesa, AZ 85201
          Telephone: (480) 707-2835
          Facsimile: (480) 522-3649
          E-mail: sbanta@abclawgroup.com


ONLINE INFORMATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brent Larson, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Online Information Services Incorporated, Case No.
2:16-cv-03956-ROS (D. Ariz., November 15, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice
to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called
party.

Online Information Services Incorporated is a developer of credit
risk assessment and debt recovery solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell Snow Thompson IV, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
      5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (602) 388-8898
      Facsimile: (866) 565-1327
      E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com

ORMSBEE ENTERPRISES: Hall et al. Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
IAN HALL, STEPHANIE CRAMM, CHRISTOPHER BORNER, JAMES M. KIRKSEY,
ARNOLD E. BENJAMIN, AND HAJRO MURATI, on Behalf of Themselves and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ORMSBEE
ENTERPRISES, INC D/B/A ELITE LIMOSINE OF HOUSTON,
ORMSBEE ENTERPRISES, INC D/B/A ELITE WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION
SOLUTIONS, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-03330 (S.D. Tex.,
November 10, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ORMSBEE ENTERPRISES, INC. provides car services which arranges
chauffeurs/drivers for cars owned by Defendants to drive
Defendants clients within local areas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Alexander Defreitas, Esq.
     Williams Tower
     2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 4100
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: (832) 390-2388
     Phone: (832) 794-6792
     Fax: (281) 784-3777
     E-mail: a.defreitas@lawyer.com


PARK KING: "Pintor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PINTOR and NELSON HIDALGO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PARK KING ATJFK, LLC,
PARK KING ATJFKII, INC., PARK KING AT JFK III, INC., and TONY
MCCICHE and KRISTEN SWABY, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
cv-16-6269 (E.D.N.Y., November 10, 2016), seeks to recover damages
for alleged egregious violations of federal and state overtime
laws and unpaid wages arising out of Plaintiffs' employment by
Defendants.

PARK KING ATJFK, LLC -- http://www.parkkingjfk.com/-- offers
parking and shuttle service to JFK Airport.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     69-12 Austin Street
     Forest Hills, NY 11375
     Phone: 718-263-9591


PARKING SYSTEMS: "Thomas" Files Wage and Hour Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS THOMAS and SERGIO MENDEZ MARTINEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, -against-
PARKING SYSTEMS GROUP, INC. d/b/a PARKING SYSTEMS, PARKING SYSTEMS
PLUS, INC. d/b/a PARKING SYSTEMS,and MARKBARON and LUISMEDRANO, as
individuals, Defendants, Case No. cv-16-6268 (E.D.N.Y., November
10, 2016), seeks to recover damages for alleged egregious
violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of
Plaintiffs' employment at PARKING SYSTEMS.

PARKING SYSTEMS GROUP, INC. -- http://www.parkingsystems.com/--
is a full service parking management company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     69-12 Austin Street
     Forest Hills, NY 11375
     Phone: 718-263-9591


PAYAM INC: Faces "Lahlou" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
SIMON MOHAMED LAHLOU, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PAYAM INC. d/b/a COLBEH RESTAURANT and
PEJAMN TOOBIAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08745
(S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2016), seeks damages and costs against
Defendants for allegedly (i) failing to pay the federal minimum
wage for tipped employees; (ii) failing to pay the overtime
premium rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week; and
(iii) conducting an invalid tip pool, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

PAYAM INC. operates several restaurant locations in the New York
City metropolitan area, serving kosher food, Persian cuisine, and
sushi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Walker G. Harman, Jr., Esq.
     Owen H. Laird, Esq.
     THE HARMAN FIRM, LLP
     220 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: (212) 25-2600
     E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com
             olaird@theharmanfirm.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Suit in Calif. Over Baby Wipes
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Procter & Gamble's "natural
clean" baby wipes contain phenoxyethanol, which can depress the
central nervous system and cause vomiting, diarrhea and
dehydration in babies, a class action claims in Santa Ana, Calif.,
Orange County Court.


PTC THERAPEUTICS: 3 Securities Suits Pending in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
PTC Therapeutics, 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 is
defending against three securities class action lawsuits in New
Jersey.

The Company said, "In March 2016, three purported securities class
action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (one each on March 3, 10, and 11),
naming as defendants the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, and
our Chief Financial Officer, captioned, respectively, as Hong Wang
v. PTC Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-01224, Kevin Kosin v.
PTC Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-01383, and Daniel Parker
v. PTC Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-01384. The lawsuits,
which have been consolidated, allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by
the Company about its business, operations, and prospects as it
relates to the NDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD that
the Company submitted to the FDA in December 2015. The plaintiffs
seek, among other things, compensatory damages for purchasers of
the Company's common stock between May 6, 2014 and February 29,
2016, as well as attorneys' fees and costs."

PTC is a global biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery, development and commercialization of orally
administered, small molecule therapeutics targeting an area of RNA
biology referred to as post-transcriptional control.


RBC CAPITAL: Faces "Luis" Suit for Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------
GARY and CARYL LUIS, GARY A. MENTZ, MICHAEL J. VITSE and MERRI L.
VITSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-03873-MJD-TNL (D. Min., November 10,
2016), alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach
of contract with respect to the sales of RBC's proprietary Reverse
Convertible Note offerings.

RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC -- https://www.rbccm.com/ -- is a premier
global investment bank.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David A. Goodwin, Esq.
     Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
     Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
     David A. Goodwin, Esq.
     Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     Canadian Pacific Plaza
     120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 333-8844
     Fax: (612) 339-6622
     E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
             dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
             etaubel@gustafsongluek.com

        - and -

     Scott D. Hirsch, Esq.
     Charles E. Scarlett, Esq.
     SCARLETT & HIRSCH, P.A.
     7777 Glades Road, Suite 200
     Boca Raton, FL 33434
     Phone: (561) 278-6707
     Fax: (561) 278-6244
     E-mail: scott@shlawfla.com
             charles@shlawfla.com


REAL MASTERS: Fails to Pay Overtime or Minimum Wages, Ortiz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO ORTIZ a/k/a PABLO ORTIZ NUNEZ and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. REAL MASTERS CONSTRUCTION INC.,
ERNEST J LANNING, Case No. 1:16-cv-24737-DPG (S.D. Fla., November
14, 2016), arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
overtime or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours
weekly from the filing of the complaint back three years.

Real Masters Construction Inc. is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County.  Ernest J. Lanning is a
corporate officer, owner or manager of the Defendant Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


REFRI COOL: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, "Marrero" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DOUGLAS MARRERO and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. REFRI COOL APPLIANCE CORP. a/k/a REFRI COOL
APPLIANCE PARTS, MYERS HVAC SUPPLY, INC., DONNY FIGUEROA, Case No.
1:16-cv-24734-JAL (S.D. Fla., November 14, 2016), accuses the
Defendants of willfully and intentionally refusing to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Refri Cool Appliance Corp., also known as Refri Cool Appliance
Parts, is a corporation that regularly transacts business within
Dade County.  Myers HVAC Supply, Inc., is a corporation that
regularly transacts business within Dade County.  On April 2016,
Refri Cool was sold and merged into Myers.  Donny Figueroa is a
corporate officer, owner or manager of the Defendant Corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


ROSEWOOD HOTELS: Faces "Marett" Suit in N.Y. Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucia Marett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Rosewood Hotels and Resorts, L.L.C., Case No. 1:16-cv-
08877 (S.D.N.Y., November 15, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Rosewood Hotels and Resorts, L.L.C. owns and operates a chain of
hotels and resorts in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East,
China, and Southeast Asia.

Lucia Marett appears pro se.

SAN JOSE, CA: Court Approves Service by Publication
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh granted the plaintiffs' "Ex Parte Application
for Order for Publication of Summons" in the case captioned JUAN
HERNANDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-03957-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

The plaintiffs, Juan Hernandez, Nathan Velasquez, Frank Velasquez,
Rachel Casey, Mark Doering, Mary Doering, Barbara Arigoni, Dustin
Haines-Scrodin, Andrew Zambetti, Christina Wong, Craig Parsons,
the minor I.P., Greg Hyver, and Todd Broome, brought a putative
class action against the City of San Jose; Sam Liccardo, the Mayor
of San Jose, in his individual capacity; Edgardo Garcia, the
Police Chief of San Jose; Does 1-15; Anthony Yi; the minor H.A.;
the minor S.M.; and Does 16-38.

The plaintiffs are individuals who attended a rally for
presidential candidate Donald J. Trump on June 2, 2016 at the
McEnery Convention Center in San Jose, California.  The plaintiffs
alleged that at the end of the rally, as the plaintiffs were
leaving the building, police officers directed the plaintiffs into
dangerous areas to a crowd of violent anti-Trump protesters and
deliberately did not intervene when violence erupted.

On October 13, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
a motion to dismiss filed by the City of San Jose, San Jose Mayor
Sam Liccardo, and San Jose Police Chief Edgardo Garcia.  The order
did not address any claims against the defendant Anthony Yi.

The plaintiff filed an "Ex Parte Application for Order for
Publication of Summons," alleging that despite reasonable
diligence, the plaintiffs have been unable to personally serve Yi.
The plaintiffs requested leave to serve Yi by publication in the
San Jose Mercury News Newspaper.

The plaintiffs alleged that Yi struck the plaintiff, Nathan
Velasquez, in the head.  Yi is a named defendant in the case, and
the plaintiffs have asserted five causes of action against Yi.
Thus, Judge Koh concluded that a cause of action exists against
Yi.

Judge Koh also held that the plaintiffs have also met the
requirement of reasonable diligence.  The judge found that the
affidavits accompanying the plaintiffs' motion demonstrate that
the plaintiffs have used reasonable diligence in attempting to
serve Yi, and that the plaintiffs have made a "thorough but
unsuccessful search for the defendant."

Thus, Judge Koh granted the plaintiffs' motion for service by
publication.  Publication shall be made in the San Jose Mercury
News once a week for four weeks.  The plaintiffs were also given
six weeks from the date of the order to complete service by
publication.

A full-text copy of Judge Koh's November 7, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/HEynTw from Leagle.com.

Juan Hernandez, Nathan Velasquez, Frank Velasquez, Rachel Casey,
Mark Doering, Mary Doering, Barbara Arigoni, Dustin Haines-
Scrodin, Andrew Zambetti, Christina Wong, Craig Parsons, I. P.,
Greg Hyver, Todd Broome, Plaintiffs, represented by Harmeet K.
Dhillon -- harmeet@dhillonlaw.com -- Dhillon Law Group Inc.,
Krista L. Baughman -- kbaughman@dhillonlaw.com -- Dhillon Law
Group Inc. & Gregory Richard Michael -- gmichael@dhillonlaw.com
-- Dhillon Law Group Inc..

City of San Jose, Defendant, represented by Ardell Johnson, San
Jose City Attorney's Office & Matthew W. Pritchard, Office of the
City Attorney.

Sam Liccardo, Edgardo Garcia, Defendants, represented by Ardell
Johnson, San Jose City Attorney's Office.

H. A., S. M., Defendants, represented by Daniel Mark Siegel --
dansiegel@siegelyee.com -- Siegel & Yee & Jalle H. Dafa --
jalle@siegelyee.com -- Siegel and Yee.


SARASOTA COUNTY SCHOOL: Leo Seeks to Recover Overtime Premium Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN LEO, ROBERT BIEGEL, THERESA JONES, LUIS MORALES, BONNIE
CHRISTIE, ANDREW GAMMILL, PAUL NAUGLE, RONALD SEEKFORD, and SHEILA
SEEKFORD, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
SARASOTA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Case No. 8:16-cv-03190-JSM-TGW (M.D.
Fla., November 14, 2016), alleges that the Plaintiffs, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, are entitled to unpaid wages from
the Defendant for overtime work for which they did not receive
overtime premium pay.

Sarasota County School Board is a state or local governmental
entity engaged in operations in Sarasota, Florida.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
          Jason M. Melton, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          One Progress Plaza
          200 Central Avenue, #400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 822-1111
          Facsimile: (727) 898-2001
          E-mail: lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
                  jason@theFLlawfirm.com


SEARS HOLDINGS: "Louis" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Robin Louis and other similarly
situated employees v. Sears Holdings Management Corporation, Case
No. 2016CA025507, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit to
the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-24766-CMA to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

Sears Holdings Management Corporation provides internet retailing
and marketing services for Sears Roebuck and Kmart retail stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Katherine Smallwood, Esq.
      Alexandre S. Drummond, Esq.
      SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
      1075 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2500
      Atlanta, GA 30309-3958
      Telephone: (404) 885-6731
      Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
      E-mail: ksmallwood@seyfarth.com
              adrummond@seyfarth.com


SELECTIVE SERVICE: National Coalition Suit Transferred to Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled National Coalition for Men and
James Lesmeister, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Selective Service System, Lawrence G. Romo and Does 1
through 10 Inclusive, Case No. 2:13-cv-02391, was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
(Houston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-
03362 to the proceeding.

Selective Service System is an independent agency of the United
States government that maintains information on those potentially
subject to military conscription.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc E. Angelucci, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MARC E. ANGLEUCCI
      11734 Wilshire Boulevard Suite C903
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (626) 319-3081
      Facsimile: (626) 236-4127

The Defendant is represented by:

      Bryan R. Diederich, Esq.
      Lynn Y. Lee, Esq.
      US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
      20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Room 7330
      Washington, DC 20001
      Telephone: (202) 305-0198
      Facsimile: (202) 616-8470


SERVICE 1ST: "Mesh" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT MESH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. SERVICE 1ST MORTGAGE, INC., a Maryland
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-24817-FAM (S.D. Fla.,
Nov. 17, 2016), seeks to recover from Service 1st unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees of this action under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week during his employment with Service 1st
between approximately April 2016 and August 2016. However, Service
1st has failed to pay time and one-half wages for all of the
actual overtime hours worked by Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated non-exempt "Mortgage Loan Officers" for all of their
actual overtime hours worked within the thre year statute of
limitations period.

Service 1st owns and/or operates a mortgage lending business with
"Mortgage Loan Officers" working at multiple offices for
Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          One Flagler
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901 1379
          Facsimile: (561) 288 9031
          E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
                  hsolis@workingforyou.com


SONY CORP: $19.5MM Settlement Fails to Win Final Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif., has refused to approve
Sony's proposed $19.5 million settlement of an antitrust class
action accusing it of conspiring to fix prices of lithium ion
batteries.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said at a November 8,
hearing for indirect purchasers of the batteries that she was
frustrated that the fairness hearing had been set before she could
consider all the information in the case.  Though Gonzalez Rogers
granted preliminary approval of the settlement in May, she said on
November 8, there are too many "moving pieces" to sign off on the
deal.

"I have always been reluctant and little bit wary of how amorphous
this settlement is," Gonzalez Rogers said. "I will say at the
outset that because I am in the midst of preparing for the
hearings next week on all of the motions that have been teed up,
I'm not approving this settlement today.

"I have a number of questions that need to be answered, and until
I have a better perspective on the pros and cons of plaintiffs'
case in terms of the IPPs and until I get through the Daughberts,
I don't intend to approve the settlement."

Motions to certify the indirect purchaser class and to strike
expert testimony were set to be heard on Nov. 15.

The indirect purchasers filed a consolidated complaint in the
multidistrict litigation in July 2013, accusing 27 defendants from
nine corporate families, including Toshiba and Samsung, of rigging
the prices of lithium ion batteries and restricting output in the
United States between Jan. 1, 2000 and May 31, 2011.

The indirect purchasers claim the defendants met in private rooms
at hotels and restaurants and communicated through trade
associations to fix prices.

Sanyo and LG Chem pleaded guilty to criminal price-fixing in
October 2013.

Under the indirect purchaser settlement, Sony agreed to pay $19.5
million and to help prosecute the case against the remaining
defendants. If approved, Sony will be the first defendant to
settle in the case.

Sony settled similar claims by direct purchasers in September for
$19 million, the first defendant to settle in that case as well.

Appearing by telephone on November 8, objector Christopher Andrews
urged Gonzalez Rogers to allow the indirect purchaser suit to
proceed to trial. He also asked that plaintiffs' counsel provide a
statement to class members of "what they will lose" if they opt
out of the settlement.

"The objector requests that the court decline approval of this so-
called 'deal' that benefits class counsel," Andrews said. "The
material issues must be repaired."

Eight class members have filed objections, and 10 members have
opted out of the settlement, according to Sony attorney Beatriz
Mejia.

Four of the opt-outs are companies, including Acer and HP.

Reiterating the lack of information, Gonzalez Rogers on November
8, also denied the plaintiffs' motion for reimbursement of $3.7
million in litigation expenses.

"Until I have a clear view of what is going on with all of these
settlements, I'm not going to be inclined to approve anything,"
Gonzalez Rogers said.

"Once in five years did I grant a motion for fees and expenses
based on an attorney declaration. I don't do it. I don't think
it's responsible."

Plaintiffs' counsel Steven Williams told Gonzalez Rogers that the
settlement is "fair and reasonable."

"We certainly urge the court not to reject approval," he said. "It
was a fair compromise to make."

Williams is with Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame; Mejia
with Cooley LLP in San Francisco.


SPHIER EMERGENCY: "Stepherson" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
DION STEPHERSON on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. SPHIER EMERGENCY ROOM, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-03399 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 17, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, equitable relief,
compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, taxable
costs of court, and post-judgment interest for Defendant's willful
failure to pay overtime wages and compensation for hours worked,
but not recorded or paid, under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The Defendant allegedly required Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated to perform all necessary work to include the
performance of those duties otherwise typically performed by
"hourly" employees which routinely required Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees to work "overtime" hours, for which
they failed to receive overtime compensation as required by FLSA.

The Defendant offers emergency medical care.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
          THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
          3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (832) 778 8182
          Facsimile: (832) 778 8353
          E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Settlement in "Forsta" Case Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FORSTA AP-FONDEN AND DANSKE INVEST MANAGEMENT A/S,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., DANIEL J. STARKS, JOHN C.
HEINMILLER, ERIC S. FAIN, MICHAEL T. ROUSSEAU, and DONALD J.
ZURBAY, Defendants, Civil No. 12-CV-3070 (JNE/HB), (D. Minn.),
District Judge Joan N. Ericksen granted the Class Representatives'
unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

For purposes of the Settlement and the Final Judgment, the
Settlement Class shall consist of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired St. Jude Medical, Inc.'s common
stock during the Class Period, from February 5, 2010 through
November 20, 2012, and who were damaged.

The Court previously appointed lead plaintiffs Forsta AP-fonden
and Danske Invest Management A/S as the Class Representatives.

The Court noted that separate orders shall be entered regarding
approval of a plan of allocation and Class Counsel's application
for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement expenses and
reimbursement of costs and expenses to the Class Representatives.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 9, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/QN5EI9 from Leagle.com.

The Court entered a separate order approving the Plan of
Allocation of the net settlement fund.  A copy of the Order is
available at https://is.gd/jS9tOo

In a Nov. 16 Order, the court approved attorneys' fees and
expenses and reimbursement of class representatives' costs and
expenses.  A copy of the Order is available at
https://is.gd/4XKMks

Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees of 25% of the
Settlement Fund ($9,812,500) (which amount includes accrued
interest) and reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount
of $2,631,505.39, plus interest earned on this amount at the same
rate earned by the Settlement Fund, which sums the Court finds to
be fair and reasonable. The attorneys' fees and litigation
expenses awarded will be paid in accordance with the terms of the
Stipulation.

In making this award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid
from the Settlement Fund, the Court considered and finds that:

     (a) Plaintiffs' Counsel have ample experience litigating
actions similar to the present Action and applied their expertise
to representing the Class for more than three years;

     (b) Plaintiffs' Counsel's services directly led to the
Settlement, which created a fund of $39,250,000 in cash, now
deposited into escrow under the Stipulation;

The Court awards the following amounts from the Settlement Fund to
Class Representatives as reimbursement for their reasonable costs
and expenses directly related to their representation of the
Class:

     $7,781.25 to Forsta AP-fonden and
     $8,775.00 to Danske Invest Management A/S.

Forsta AP-Fonden, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher F Moriarty
-- cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC.

Forsta AP-Fonden, Plaintiff, represented by Gregg S. Levin --
glevin@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Gregory M. Castaldo --
gcastaldo@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, James W
Anderson -- janderson@heinsmills.com -- Heins Mills & Olson, PLC,
Joshua C Littlejohn -- jlittlejohn@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice
LLC, Lance V. Oliver -- loliver@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC,
Matthew D. Camm -- mcamm@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC,
Michael J Pendell -- mpendell@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC,
Renae D Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, PLC, Vincent J Esades --
vesades@heinsmills.com -- Heins Mills & Olson, PLC & William Henry
Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC.

Danske Invest Management A/S, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C
Mulveny -- dmulveny@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, Gregory M. Castaldo -- gcastaldo@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, James W Anderson -- janderson@heinsmills.com
-- Heins Mills & Olson, PLC, Joshua E D'Ancona --
jdancona@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Margaret E
Onasch -- monasch@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
Renae D Steiner -- rsteiner@heinsmills.com -- Heins Mills & Olson,
PLC & Vincent J Esades -- vesades@heinsmills.com -- Heins Mills &
Olson, PLC.

St. Jude Medical, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alycia Ann Degen
-- adegen@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Daniel L Ring --
dring@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, David F Graham --
dgraham@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Joseph R Dosch --
jdosch@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Laura Rose Hammargren --
lhammargren@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Michelle S Grant --
grant.michelle@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Rachel B
Niewoehner -- rniewoehner@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin, LLP, Robert
D. Keeling -- rkeeling@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP & William
Michael, Jr -- wmichael@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP.


SUNPOWER CORP: Dec. 8 Hearing for Lead Plaintiff Bid Set
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg ordered that the hearing regarding
the motions for appointment of lead plaintiff be held on December
8, 2016, in the case styled, KENNETH BRISTOW, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNPOWER
CORPORATION, THOMAS H. WERNER, and CHARLES D. BOYNTON, Defendants.
JAY PATEL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNPOWER CORPORATION, THOMAS H. WERNER,
and CHARLES D. BOYNTON, Defendants, Case Nos. 3:16-cv-04710-RS,
3:16-cv-04915-RS (N.D. Cal.).

In the case, multiple movants have filed competing motions seeking
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff and to consolidate the related
Bristow and Patel actions, as a matter of avoiding unnecessary
expenditure of judicial resources or effort by the parties and the
Court.

Based on the parties' stipulation, the Initial Case Management
Conferences in the Bristow and Patel actions and its associated
deadlines are continued until after a lead plaintiff has been
appointed to represent the alleged class.

Judge Seeborg further ordered that the Defendants are not required
to respond to the Bristow and Patel complaints or the complaint in
any action consolidated into the action, other than an amended or
consolidated complaint or a complaint designated as the operative
complaint after the appointment of lead plaintiff.

Thus, the Initial Case Management Conferences (CMC) in the Bristow
and Patel actions, currently scheduled for November 18 and 29,
2016, respectively, and the associated CMC and the alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) deadlines in the Bristow and Patel
actions, are vacated and adjourned to such other date and time as
the Court shall order.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 8, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/fRc7Uz from Leagle.com.

Kenneth Bristow, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay
-- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Kenneth Bristow, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Henry Linehan -
- clinehan@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Howard
G. Smith, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, Lesley F. Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Lionel
Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Mundeog Seol, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com -- Finkelstein Thompson LLP.

SunPower Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven Mark Schatz
-- sschatz@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Diane
Marie Walters -- dwalters@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: "Klein" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GABBY KLEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,
EREZ VIGODMAN, EYAL DESHEH, and KOBI ALTMAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-08747 (S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2016), alleges violations of
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act by making materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies, particularly relating to
generic drug prices.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED develops, manufactures,
markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of
specialty medicines worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Fax: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


TONOGA INC: Faces "Burdick" Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Tonoga, Inc.
d/b/a Taconic.

The case is captioned Jay Burdick, individually, and on behalf of
all similarly situated and Emily Marpe, individually, and as
parent and natural guardian of E.B., an infant, and G.Y., an
infant, individually and on behalf of all v. Tonoga, Inc. d/b/a
Taconic, Case No. 253835/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 15, 2016).

Tonoga, Inc. is a manufacturer of advanced, engineered composite
materials consisting of Teflon(R) coated fiberglass, Kevlar(R),
and Nomex(R).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angelo G. Faraci, Esq.
      FARACI LANGE, LLP
      28 East Main Street, Ste 1110
      Rochester, NY 14614
      Telephone: (585) 325-5150
      Facsimile: (585) 325-3285

The Defendant is represented by:

      Gerald J. Williams, Esq.
      WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY
      1515 Market St., Suite 1300
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 557-0099
      Facsimile: (215) 557-0673
      E-mail: gwilliams@wcblegal.com

         - and -

      Eric Chaffin, Esq.
      CHAFFIN LUHANA LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 12th Fl
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (888) 480-1123
      Facsimile: (888) 499-1123
      E-mail: info@chaffinluhana.com


TONOGA INC: Faces "Plouffe" Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Tonoga, Inc.
d/b/a Taconic.

The case is captioned Connie Plouffe, Edward Plouffe, Frank
Seymour and Suzanne Seymour, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tonoga, Inc. d/b/a Taconic, Case No.
254236/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 15, 2016).

Tonoga, Inc. is a manufacturer of advanced, engineered composite
materials consisting of Teflon(R) coated fiberglass, Kevlar(R),
and Nomex(R).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John K. Powers, Esq.
      POWERS & SANTOLA, LLP
      39 North Pearl Street
      Albany, NY 12207
      Telephone: (518) 465-5995

The Defendant is represented by:

      BOND SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
      One Lincoln Center
      Syracuse, NY 13202
      Telephone: (315) 218-8000

         - and -

      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      700 Broadway
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 558-5500

         - and -

      HOLLINGSWORTH, LLP
      1350 I Street, NY 20005
      Telephone: (202) 898-5800


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: $25 Million Settlement Reached
------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
President-elect Donald Trump will pay the bulk of a $25 million
class action settlement -- $21 million -- to students who sued the
businessman-turned-world leader nearly seven years ago in
California, just days before the first San Diego case was set to
go to trial.

The class attorneys told U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel at a
hearing in San Diego federal court on November 18, afternoon that
all 7,000 class members in the two San Diego cases -- Low v. Trump
University and Cohen v. Trump -- would get at least half if not
all of what they spent on a Trump University real estate
education. Attorney Jason Forge said they were able to "maximize
recovery" for Trump University students by waiving their
attorney's fees and litigating the case on behalf of the students
for free.

"This is a real resolution, people are going to get real money
back," Forge said.

L to R: Judge Gonzalo Curiel, David Lee Kirman, David Marroso,
Jill Ann Martin, Daniel M. Petrocelli, Jason Forge, Rachel Jensen,
Patrick Coughlin, U.S. Marshals. (Krentz Johnson).
L to R: Judge Gonzalo Curiel, David Lee Kirman, David Marroso,
Jill Ann Martin, Daniel M. Petrocelli, Jason Forge, Rachel Jensen,
Patrick Coughlin, U.S. Marshals. (Krentz Johnson)
Class attorney Rachel Jensen said the students can finally "pay
off their credit cards and move on with their lives." She told
reporters at a news conference outside the courthouse that lead
plaintiff Sonny Low still has $9,000 in credit card debt and had
to get a job at Home Depot to pay back what he invested in now-
defunct real estate school.

The Low case included Trump University students in California, New
York and Florida, who sued Trump in 2010 over claims he defrauded
them when they invested up to $35,000 to learn insider real estate
secrets from instructors purportedly handpicked by Trump. The
president-elect turned out to have little involvement in the
school and his attorneys said he relied on "sales puffery" common
in advertising to capitalize on Trump's name.

New York's Attorney General followed suit, suing Trump University
in 2013. At the heart of that case was the title "university,"
which New York's Department of Education had warned the real
estate school it could not use because it was not an accredited
institution.

The Cohen case out of San Diego was also filed in 2013, and relied
on essentially the same fraud claims as Low. However, it also
included a racketeering claim that Trump violated the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and knowingly defrauded
students.

The $25 million settlement will cover all three cases in
California and New York and will be made public. New York Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman announced the settlement before the
hearing in San Diego -- something the class attorneys took issue
with.

"The attorney general was quick to get a press release out to
claim credit, but it was really this case [Low] that moved the
litigation forward," attorney Patrick Coughlin said.
Schneiderman's statement didn't mention the San Diego cases at
all.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller of the Southern District of
California presided over the settlement negotiations.

While the settlement vacates a Nov. 28 trial date for the Low
case, Curiel will have the final say on whether the settlement is
"fair, adequate, and reasonable."

Since the election, Trump's attorneys had been scrambling to get
the trial postponed until after Trump's Jan. 20 inauguration --
citing the "momentous task" of assembling a cabinet and preparing
for the presidency. The hearing Friday was originally scheduled to
address Trump's motion to delay the trial, but obviously was not
discussed in light of the settlement.

Forge said once the settlement is approved, the Trump University
students could get paid back within a few months.

Trump's attorney Daniel Petrocelli reminded the packed courtroom
that Trump acknowledges no fault or liability in the class
actions. He thanked Curiel for his work on the cases and said the
settlement was something "we can all be happy about." He also said
the president-elect is happy to put the case behind him and is
"keenly interested in tackling the problems facing the country."

Forge said the class actions were "something we all believe in."

"Outside the court, things have been pretty ugly and that didn't
affect your honor," he told Curiel while thanking him for
presiding over one of the oldest cases on the judge's docket.

"President-elect Trump could have dragged this out for years and
he didn't."

Curiel, who Trump famously called a "hater of Donald Trump" who
could not preside over the case fairly because of his Mexican
heritage, broke his radio silence on the political landscape
outside his courtroom to share a message of moving forward.

"This does represent an important development, stage, day not just
in this litigation but with respect to the country and getting the
healing process started that it so sorely needs," Curiel said

Trump attorney Daniel Petrocelli. (Bianca Bruno)
Trump attorney Daniel Petrocelli. (Bianca Bruno)
Outside the courthouse, Forge told reporters that he detected a
"change of the tone and approach" in Trump regarding the case, and
his willingness to settle it in the days following his election
win. He called the talks "surprisingly cordial" and said the
attorneys worked on the settlement "up until an hour" before
November 18, hearing.

Petrocelli told reporters while Trump "likes to fight and thinks
he's right," he pushed aside personal feelings about the case to
get it resolved.

"He has laser focus on moving forward. It's time to move on,"
Petrocelli said.

He laughed when a reporter asked if he'd also vacate attorney's
fees, and said he doesn't "work on a pro bono basis." And he added
that while they "didn't always agree with the court's rulings" he
thought the settlement was a win for everyone involved.

"This is a good one all around. It's a victory for everybody,"
Petrocelli said.

                           *     *     *

Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
"I never settle lawsuits," Donald Trump has said, but the
president-elect did just that on November 18, committing $25
million as part of a global deal to resolve fraud and racketeering
claims against Trump University.

The deal is $5 million higher than the anticipated settlement that
was widely reported this morning. It is expected to be made
public.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman celebrated the
settlement.

"In 2013, my office sued Donald Trump for swindling thousands of
innocent Americans out of millions of dollars through a scheme
known at Trump University," Schneiderman said in a statement.
"Donald Trump fought us every step of the way, filing baseless
charges and fruitless appeals and refusing to settle for even
modest amounts of compensation for the victims of his phony
university. Today, that all changes. Today's $25 million
settlement agreement is a stunning reversal by Donald Trump and a
major victory for the over 6,000 victims of his fraudulent
university."

Three years have passed since the AG sued Trump and his so-called
university for fraud. The deal allots $4 million to New York's
case, with the bulk of the money going to a class action that had
been on its way to trial in San Diego.

Schneiderman's 2013 lawsuit said that Trump's bait-and-switch
operation bilked students out of $40 million with sham promises
about following "The Donald's" model. "Just copy exactly what I've
done and get rich," the reality star promised entrepreneurs-in-
waiting.

From describing his conference-room lectures as a "university" to
claiming that he "handpicked" his instructors, the next president
of the United States duped his students into paying upwards of
$35,000 to attend "Trump Elite" seminar classes, the lawsuits
said.

While Schneiderman's case simmered on the back burner, the suit
Low v. Trump came to a boil in San Diego. This class included
Trump University students in New York, California and Florida.
This case was unrelated to the 2010 case Cohen v. Trump, also in
San Diego, which involved a much larger, nationwide class, and a
more complex set of claims that includes racketeering.

Apart from a press conference after a hearing in San Diego last
week, the attorneys there have refused to talk to the media. The
parties met at the San Diego courthouse on November 18, for a
hearing at 1:45 p.m. local time, initially meant to focus on
Trump's bid to postpone the Low trial.

Class counsel in both San Diego class actions had waived
attorneys' fees, working on the lawsuits pro bono.

Ahead of the official announcement on November 18, a spokesman for
Attorney General Schneider noted that the state was happy eager to
make a deal.

"As Attorney General Schneiderman has long said, he has always
been open to a settlement that fairly compensates the many victims
of Trump University who have been waiting years for a resolution,"
spokesman Eric Soufer said in a statement on November 18.

University of Utah professor Christopher Peterson has argued that
racketeering charges against Trump could be grounds for
impeachment.

In an interview, Peterson said a settlement would diminish Trump's
chance for impeachment, but the president-elect is not yet in the
clear.

"Legally, it does not affect whether Congress would impeach him,"
the professor said on the phone November 18.

Peterson explained that impeachment proceedings are separate from
judicial ones, which a settlement would leave unresolved.

"That doesn't mean the underlying events that the plaintiffs were
complaining about did not occur," the professor added, referring
to the settlement.

Beyond political self-preservation, Trump has many other reasons
to want to reach a global settlement now, including economic,
reputational and even geographic.

"He's facing a jury pool in San Diego," Peterson noted. "That's
not Trump territory."

Defeat could have cost Trump automatically tripled damages under
federal anti-racketeering law, and Peterson said that Trump's
pretrial setbacks meant that the evidence would not look good for
him."

Peterson's 23-page scholarly study said that Congress would be
"well within its legal rights to insist upon a president who is
not a fraudster or a racketeer."

Congress has the sole authority to authorize impeachment with
support from at least two-thirds of the Senate. The professor said
senators have broad discretion to decide whether fraud and
racketeering claims, even in a civil case, meet those standards.

Trump's attorney Alan Garten did not respond to a telephone
request for comment.


TRXADE GROUP: Court Preliminarily Approves $200,000 Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kristi K. Dubose of the United States District
Court of the Southern District of Alabama granted Plaintiff Family
Medicine Pharmacy, LLC's unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of a proposed class action settlement and for preliminary
certification of the settlement class in the case captioned FAMILY
MEDICINE PHARMACY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. TRXADE GROUP, INC. and
WESTMINSTER PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 15-0590-KD-
B (S.D. Ala.).

Plaintiff brings the proposed class action complaint alleging that
Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,
47 U.S.C. Section 221, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005 (the TCPA). Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants violated the Act by sending or "fax blasting" thousands
of unsolicited faxed advertisements to Plaintiff and the putative
class members to generate sales leads and advertise the commercial
availability of Defendants' pharmaceutical products. Plaintiff
also alleges that even with consent to receive faxed
advertisements the TCPA requires a notice on the advertisement
that provides a cost-free mechanism to opt out of receipt;
Defendants violated the TCPA by omitting that notice.

In the unopposed motion, Plaintiff, on behalf of the class, seeks
preliminary certification of the settlement class under Rules
23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the
Settlement Agreement, for purposes of the class settlement
agreement only, the parties agreed to a Class Period defined as
"January 2012 to the date of the Court's Preliminary Approval of
the Class Action Settlement defined the class as "Any and all
individuals and/or entities located in any state, district, or
territory of the United States that received one or more
advertisements or solicitations via facsimile from Defendants
during the Class Period."

At the hearing, the Court and the parties discussed amending the
definition to account for an exception to the operation of the
TCPA that exists where the unsolicited advertisement is sent "from
a sender with an established business relationship with the
recipient" 42 U.S.C. Setion 227(b)(1)(C)(i). In the proposed
order, the parties proffered the definition as "All individuals
and/or entities, who did not have an established business
relationship with Trxade Group, Inc. and Westminster Pharmacy,
LLC, located in any state, district, or territory of the United
States that received one or more unsolicited advertisements or
solicitations via facsimile from Defendants during the Class
Period."

At mediation, the parties agreed to a non-reverting settlement
fund in the amount of $200,000.00 from which attorney's fees, the
class representative's incentive award, and the claims
administrator's fees would be deducted with the balance
distributed pro rata to the class members up to $1,000.

In her Order dated November 4, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/cDoI4y from Leagle.com, Judge Dubose concluded that
Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence that the Defendants
sent an unsolicited fax advertisement to the Plaintiff and
satisfied the Rule 23(a) requirements for certification of the
class action. The Court approved the Settlement Agreement on a
preliminary basis as fair, reasonable and adequate.

The Court appointed Debrosse and McFerrin as class counsel to
represent the settlement class, JND Legal Administration as class
administrator.

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:00 a.m., a hearing regarding
the final approval of the class action settlement shall be held.
Any motion for approval of attorney's fees and motion for
incentive award are due on or before December 19, and objections
shall be due by December 26.

Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC is represented by:

       James H. McFerrin, Esq.
       THE MCFERRIN LAW FIRM
       Tel:(334)371-4529

            -- and --

       Diandra S. Debrosse, Esq.
       Gregory Martin Zarzaur, Esq.
       HOLLIS & WRIGHT
       187 Elmhurst Dr, Ste A
       Kyle, TX
       Tel: (512)268-9415

TRXADE Group Inc., et. al are represented by M. Warren Butler,
Esq. -- wbutler@starneslaw.com -- and Scott D. Stevens, Esq. --
sstevens@starneslaw.com -- STARNES DAVIS FLORIE LLP


UNITED PARCEL: Trial in Morgate Suit Scheduled for Mid-2017
-----------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, 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 trial is
scheduled for mid-2017 in the "Morgate" class action complaint.

The Company said, "UPS and our subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc., are
defendants in Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al., an action in
the Los Angeles Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified
class of all franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes
Etc. franchises to The UPS Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges
that UPS and The UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts
to the class about the market tests that were conducted before
offering the class the choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS
Store. Trial is scheduled for mid-2017."


UNITED PARCEL: 9th Circuit Briefing Complete in AFMS Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, 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 briefing
is now complete in the appeal before the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit related to the class action complaint by AFMS LLC.

In AFMS LLC v. UPS and FedEx Corporation, a lawsuit filed in
federal court in the Central District of California in August
2010, the plaintiff asserts that UPS and FedEx violated U.S.
antitrust law by conspiring to refuse to negotiate with third-
party negotiators retained by shippers and by individually
imposing policies that prevent shippers from using such
negotiators. The Court granted summary judgment motions filed by
UPS and FedEx, entered judgment in favor of UPS and FedEx, and
dismissed the case. Plaintiff appealed, and briefing is now
complete before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


UNITED SITE: "Madison" Suit Seeks Payment of Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JERMAINE MADISON, on his own behalf and others similarly situated
v. UNITED SITE SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No. 6:16-cv-01991-
CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla., November 14, 2016), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid wages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

United Site Services of Florida, Inc., is a for profit corporation
that operates and conducts business in, among others, Seminole
County, Florida.  The Company is a provider of portable restroom
services in the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. John Gadd, Esq.
          W. JOHN GADD, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          Bank of America Building
          2727 Ulmerton Rd., Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524-6300
          Facsimile: (727) 524-6330
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com

               - and -

          Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LAW, PLLC
          PO. Box 4476
          Brandon, FL 33509-4476
          Telephone: (813) 343-2813
          E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com


UNIVERSAL USED PALLETS: Accused by Pino of Not Paying OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO ALEXIS CASTANEDA PINO and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. UNIVERSAL USED PALLETS INC.
a/k/a UNIVERSAL PALLETS, INC. QUALITY PALLETS, INC. JOSE R
LESTEIRO, Case No. 1:16-cv-24747-DPG (S.D. Fla., November 14,
2016), is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, on behalf of the Defendants' employees, who have
not been paid overtime or minimum wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

Universal Used Pallets Inc., also known as Universal Pallets,
Inc., is a corporation that regularly transacts business within
Miami-Dade County.  Universal Used Pallets, Inc. is a wholesaler
of lumber, plywood, millwork and pallets.  Quality Pallets, Inc.,
is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Miami-
Dade County.  Jose R. Lesteiro is a corporate officer, owner or
manager of both Defendant Corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


VECTREN CORPORATION: Suit by SIGECO Employees in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Vectren 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 in the
class action lawsuit by SIGECO employees are engaged in the
discovery process.

During the third quarter of 2014, the Company was notified of
claims by a group of current and former SIGECO employees
("claimants") who participated in the Pension Plan for Salaried
Employees of SIGECO ("SIGECO Salaried Plan").  That plan was
merged into the Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining
Retirement Plan ("Vectren Combined Plan") effective July 1, 2000.
The claims relate to the claimants' election for benefits to be
calculated under the Vectren Combined Plan's cash-balance formula
rather than the SIGECO Salaried Plan formula.

On March 12, 2015, certain claimants filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Vectren Combined Plan and the Company in
federal district court requesting that a class be certified and
for various relief including that the Combined Plan be reformed
and benefits thereunder be recalculated. The Company denied the
allegations set forth in the Complaint and moved to dismiss the
case.

In April 2016, the court dismissed part of the compliant but
allowed the remaining claims to proceed. The court will not
consider the class certification issue until after the summary
judgment stage of the case. The parties are now engaged in the
discovery process.

Vectren Corporation (the Company or Vectren), an Indiana
corporation, is an energy holding company headquartered in
Evansville, Indiana.


VIRGINIA CLEANING: Faces "Rivero" Suit for Not Paying Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON RIVERO v. NATASHA TELLEZ-MANSY, DIANA TELLEZ, and VIRGINIA
CLEANING AND PUNCHOUT, INC. (D.C. Super. Ct., November 14, 2016),
accuses the Defendants of failing to pay overtime and other wages
to the Plaintiff and others similarly situated with respect to his
Fair Labor Standards Act unpaid overtime claims.

Virginia Cleaning is a Virginia corporation engaged in the
business of cleaning newly constructed buildings in the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.  The Company advertises on its
Web page that "[o]ur cleaners specialize in pre-closing cleaning,
from scraping windows, to cleaning and shining the kitchen
counters just before your client's scheduled closing."  According
to Virginia Cleaning's Web site, the Company is "Family owned and
operated."

Natasha Tellez-Mansy is the President, principal owner and
corporate agent of Virginia Cleaning.  She acted as a supervisor
for the Plaintiff.  Diana Tellez is the person principally
responsible for Virginia Cleaning's day to day operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
          THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
          509 N. Jefferson St.
          Arlington, VA 22205
          Telephone: (703) 665-9529
          Facsimile: (888) 958-1366
          E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN: Lawsuits Filed Over Gasoline-Powered Audi Models
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a new rash of lawsuits claims in San Francisco, Volkswagen's
scheme to cheat emissions tests didn't stop with diesel-engine
vehicles but extended to hundreds of thousands of gasoline-powered
Audi models as well.

The string of class actions come just after Volkswagen finalized a
$15 billion deal last month to settle claims over nearly 500,000
2.0-liter diesel-engine cars designed to give false emission
readings.

At least five class actions have been filed since the German
newspaper Bild am Sonntag reported on Nov. 6 that the California
Air Resources Board found another defeat device installed in gas-
powered Audis with certain eight-speed automatic transmissions.

Audi owner Elliot Stokar filed the first class action on Nov. 8 in
the Northern District of Illinois, claiming the fuel efficiency
and carbon emissions advertised for the Audi model 8 he purchased
in March 2013 were false.

The latest federal lawsuit, filed on November 17, by lead
plaintiff Eugina Amador in San Francisco, alleges Volkswagen
continued to deceive consumers even as it pledged to make amends
for installing emissions-cheating software in an estimated 11
million cars worldwide.

"Unbelievably, despite Volkswagen's promises to 'come clean' and
to be honest about its past mistakes in 2015, it apparently
persisted in concealing and selling vehicles with a different
defeat device in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Audi-
branded vehicles," the 68-page complaint states.

Citing the Bild am Sontag news report, the plaintiffs claim the
Audi vehicles stay in "warm-up" mode and change gears at unusually
low speeds to burn less fuel and emit less carbon until the
steering wheel is turned 15 degrees or more.

Emission tests typically take place on a dynamometer or "rolling
pad," which the plaintiffs describe as a "car-sized treadmill."

Audi's former head of powertrain development, Alex Eiser,
reportedly asked in February 2013 that the gear shift-slowing
program be configured to be "100% active when on the roller, but
only .01% with the customer," according to documents obtained by
Bild am Sontag and the Wall Street Journal as cited in Amador's
lawsuit.

The complaint says the cheating program was installed in ZF eight-
speed automatic transmissions used in both diesel and gasoline-
powered Audi vehicles, including but not limited to Audi models
A6, A7, A8, Q5 and Q7.

"Because of defendants' actions, the cars it sold to plaintiffs
and the class are not what defendants promised," Amador says in
her complaint. "During normal operation, they pollute the
atmosphere with much higher levels of carbon dioxide than the
artificially-manipulated test results disclose or than are
permitted by federal and state environmental protection laws."

On Nov. 13, Bild am Sontag reported that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency had opened an investigation into Audi's alleged
use of defeat devices in gas-powered vehicles.

An EPA spokesman declined to comment on reports of the alleged
investigation.

Dave Clegern, spokesman for the California Air Resources Board,
did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment on the
agency's reported discovery of defeat devices in gas-powered
vehicles this past summer.

The first class action filed in Chicago by lead plaintiff Stokar
seeks damages, restitution and disgorgement for a nationwide class
of aggrieved Audi buyers.

Stokar is represented by Steve Berman of the law firm Hagens
Berman Sobel and Shapiro in Seattle.  Amador is represented by
Jeffrey Lewis -- jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- of Keller Rohrback
LLC in Oakland.

Audi did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment on the
new rash of lawsuits.


WATSON FAMILY: "Elhajjami" Suit Alleges Employment Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMMED ELHAJJAMI and NADIA ELORCHI on their own behalf and on
behalf of their minor child, Y.E. Plaintiffs, v. WATSON FAMILY
HYUNDAI, INC.; HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT WATSON; GRAHAM
WATSON; and SHAWN MARTIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10511 (N.D.
Ill., November 10, 2016), alleges that Plaintiff has been
subjected to discrimination, harassment and retaliation in the
workplace because of his North African Arab Muslim race, ancestry,
and ethnicity.

Hyundai Motor America is the publicly traded American subsidiary
of Korean automaker Hyundai Motor Company, Ltd. Hyundai Motor
America manufactures and retails automobiles through its
approximate 820 dealerships nationwide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Linda D. Friedman, Esq.
     GAIL SCHNITZER EISENBERG STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD.
     303 W. Madison, Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: 312.431.0888
     Fax: 312.431.0228
     E-mail: LFriedman@sfltd.com
             GEisenberg@sfltd.com


WB HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss "Wasvary" Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mark Wasvary, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. WB
Holdings, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-10750 (E.D. Mich.),
District Judge Sean F. Cox was scheduled to hear the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the putative class action on November 17, 2016.

Plaintiff alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (TCPA).

The Complaint provides a blanket request for the Plaintiff to
amend any deficiencies on its allegations. Thus, the Court had
ordered the Plaintiff to file a formal motion seeking for leave to
amend complaint on November 14, 2016. Otherwise, the Court shall
proceed to hear and determine the pending Motion to Dismiss as
scheduled, reviewing the Complaint as filed.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 7, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/HJ8F7W from Leagle.com.

Mark Wasvary, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Phillip Taylor
Tourek -- Christopher@bockhatchllc.com -- Bock & Hatch LLC.

Mark Wasvary, Plaintiff, represented by James M. Smith --
jim@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch LLC, Jason J. Thompson --
jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Julia L. Titolo
-- julia@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC,
Tod A. Lewis -- tod@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch LLC & Phillip
A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC.

Airtime, et al., Defendants, represented by Darryl Bressack, Fink
Associates Law, David H. Fink, Fink + Associates Law & Isaac S.
Sternheim, Fink & Associates.


XEROX CORP: Oklahoma Firefighters Fund Files Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Xerox 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 has
been named a defendant in the case, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension
and Retirement System v. Xerox Corporation, Ursula M. Burns, Luca
Maestri, Kathryn A. Mikells, Lynn R. Blodgett and Robert K.
Zapfel.

On October 21, 2016, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System ("plaintiff") filed a purported securities class
action complaint against Xerox Corporation, Ursula Burns, Luca
Maestri, Kathryn Mikells, Lynn Blodgett and Robert Zapfel in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of the plaintiff and certain purchasers or acquirers of
Xerox common stock. The complaint alleges that defendants made
false and misleading statements, in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5,
relating to the operations and prospects of Xerox's Health
Enterprise business. Plaintiff seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees. Other, similar
lawsuits may follow.

Xerox and the individual defendants will vigorously defend against
this matter.

"At this time, it is premature to make any conclusion regarding
the probability of incurring material losses in this litigation.
Should developments cause a change in our determination as to an
unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or
settlement, there could be a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the
period in which such change in determination, judgment, or
settlement occurs," the Company said.


XEROX HR: Retirement Plans File Class Suit
------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that members of three Ford Motor
Co. retirement plans accuse Xerox HR Solutions of de facto self-
dealing and taking kickbacks in administering $14 billion in the
retirement plans, in a class action in Detroit Federal Court.


YOURPEOPLE INC: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leonardo Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. YourPeople, Inc., d/b/a Zenefits FTW
Insurance Services; a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-03982-JZB (D. Ariz., Nov. 17, 2016), seek to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, and an equal amount of liquidated
damages, including interest, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, for at least three years prior to the
filing of this action, Defendant had a consistent policy and
practice of requiring its employees to work well in excess of 40
hours per week without paying them time and a half for hours
worked over 40 hours per week. For at least three years prior to
the filing of this action, Plaintiff worked at least 15-30 hours
in excess of 40 hours per week and was not paid time and a half.

YourPeople integrates HR offerings into an online dashboard,
including onboarding to health insurance, payroll to PTO, and
401(k) to FSA for small businesses in the United States. It
provides benefits/insurance, HR management, ACA compliance,
payroll, time and attendance, and PTO solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          Sean C. Davis, Esq.
          Preston K. Flood, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES LAW FIRM
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 288 1610
          E-mail: seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *