CAR_Public/161130.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 30, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 239




                            Headlines

1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Thompson" Suit in S.D. Calif.
1-800-FLOWERS: "Conklin" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
52 VAN: Pedraza Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
2645 MEAT: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Villegas" Suit Says
5150 RACE TRAILERS: Class Certification Sought in "Romero" Suit

ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Reconsideration Bid to Be Heard Dec. 16
ADEPTUS HEALTH: Laborers' Local Sues Over IPO, SPOs Disclosure
ALOTERRA FARMS: Faces "Whitley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ANTERO RESOURCES: Meinig Sues Over Denied Rents and Royalties
ARKANSAS: "Avery" Suit Seeks Certification of Detainees Class

ASSET RECOVERY: "Guthrie" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
AUDI AG: Faces "Platt" Class Suit in North. Dist. California
AVID TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Mohanty" Securities Suit in Massachusetts
BAKER BRAVERMAN: Amesbury Seeks Certification of Classes
BAXTER INT'L: Faces Antitrust Suit Over IV Solutions in Illinois

BERKS, PA: Faces "Derr" Class Suit in East. District Pennsylvania
BF LABS: "Alexander" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
BF WASTE: "Macias" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
BLATT & HASENMILLER: "Lillegard" Suit Seeks Class Certification
BLUESTEM BRANDS: "Norris" Suit Overtime Pay Under FLSA

BUFFALO TRACE: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Bottle Labeling
C BASTOS: Sandoval Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
CALIFORNIA: Classes Certified in "Amador" Strip-Search Suit
CALLSMART INC: Dolemba Class Cert. Bid Continued to Jan. 26
CARSON SMITHFIELD: Class Certification Sought in "Sievert" Suit

CATALINA RESTAURANT: Class Cert. Sought in Warn Act Litigation
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Pressman Seeks Class Certification Under TCPA
CHAPEI LLC: Court Refuses to Conditionally Certify "Wang" Suit
CHARTER TOWNSHIP: Court Denied Class Cert. Without Prejudice
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Suits in New Jersey

COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Stathakos, et al. Seek Class Certification
COLUMBINE MANAGEMENT: "Null" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
COOK COUNTY, IL: "Rogers" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Hernandez Moves for Certification of Class
CONTROL4 CORPORATION: "Panusis" Suit Seeks Certification of Class

COSTAMAR EXPRESS: Faces "Solis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CRESCENT CONSULTING: Faces "Whitlow" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PALM BEACH, FL: Boyce Trans Seeks Certification of Class
DILLON LAW: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid Continued to Jan. 6

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Palmer" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Feb. 3 Hearing on Securities Accord
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Shumake" Securities Class Action
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Soontjens" Securities Class Action
E-COMMERCE CHINA: Fasano et al. File Securities Suit Over Merger

ELECTRICITY MAINE: Sued Over Electricity Cost Savings Scheme
EHT PHARMACY: Class Certification Hearing Set for Jan 20
EMERSON ELECTRIC: Class Cert. Sought in Marketing and Sales Case
EUROSTAR INC: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Disability Discrimination
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Offsets $6MM Expense With Deal in Vendor Suit

FLORIDA: Certification of Class Sought in "McKnight" Suit
FRONTON HOLDINGS: Class Certification Bid in "Rife" Suit Denied
GBC TOWSON: Refuses to Pay Latina Workers, "Leiva" Suit Alleges
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued by Puente Over Wrong Fuel Economy Estimates
GILBERT MEGA: Accused by "Medina" Suit of Failing to Pay Wages

HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Tripp Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
HOSTA HOLDINGS: Class Certification Sought in "Bellanich" Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Wylie" Class Suit in Cent. Dist. California
INGRAM & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Redding" Suit Says
INSIEME INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Melgar" Suit Says

INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Sued Over Sale of Company to Genesys
IXIA: Settlement in "Santore" Suit Became Final on August 31
JOYCE STEEL: Keith et al. Seek to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
LADENBURG THALMANN: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Fuse Suits v. Miller
LADENBURG THALMANN: Bids to Junk Plains All American Suit Pending

LADENBURG THALMANN: Defends Consolidated Suit vs. American Realty
LADENBURG THALMANN: Settlement Reached in Securities America Suit
LASERTONE CORP: Faces "Shakur" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LEE COUNTY, FL: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Lopez"
LEGACY HOME: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA

MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Expects No Add'l Expenses in Cadillac Suit
MEMORIAL HEALTH: Class Certification Sought in "Myers" Suit
MODEL N INC: Excludes Expenses in Securities Suits in 4Q Results
MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: Class Cert. Bid Taken Under Submission
MULTI-SERVICIOS: Hernandez Sues Over Check-Cashing Services

NATIONAL RETAIL: Rainboth-Venditti Seek Certification of Class
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Denied Class Certification in "Davis"
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Fekete" Suit Claims
NEW CHINA: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
O.B. PARRIS: Sued Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties

OAKS DIAGNOSTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Break
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Securities Litigation
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: "Woo" Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
PACKERS SANITATION: Faces "Kelly" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
PPG INDUSTRIES: Amos Class Cert. Bid Denied Pending Discovery

PREMIER NUTRITION: Sued Over Joint Juice Products False Ads
PRICELINE GROUP: Faces 30 Suits Over Travel Transaction Taxes
PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Registration Statement
PULTE HOME: "Parker" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Sued in N.Y. Over Disability Discrimination

READY PAC: "Carcamo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
RIVERDALE CAR: Faces "Pineda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ROCHESTER GAS: Fails to Pay Earned Wages and Overtime, Rode Says
ROSE TREE CONDOMINIUM: Sued by ADA Realty for Mishandling Issues
SCOTT KERNAN: Court Denied Class Certification in "Hicks"

SPORTS GRILL: "Fletcher" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
SSC LEXINGTON: "Allen" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
SUBWAY 39077: Judge Scola Denied FLSA Class Cert. Bid in "Aguiar"
SYMPHONY DIAGNOSTIC: Reddick Seeks Certification of Classes
SYSCO GUEST: Gorrs Motels Seeks Certification of Class

T & B MANAGEMENT: Chavez, et al. Seek Certification of Class
TEXAS BRINE: Sanchez Seeks Certification of Land Owners Class
TEAM WOW: "Nelson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
TIMELINE LOGISTICS: Sauls Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
TINDER INC: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over "Anti-American" Pricing

U.S. BANK: "Smith" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Metter" Suit Seeks to Scrap Cancellation Fee
UNITED RECOVERY: Kroell May Refile Bid to Certify, Court Rules
UNITED STATES: Seeks Until Nov. 30 to File Response in "Reyes"
UNO CONSTRUCTION: "Rosario" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

VMWARE INC: Suits Arising From Dell Acquisition Remains Pending
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: $9-Mil. Settlement Paid in Third Quarter
WELLS FARGO: "Miller" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
WEST COAST TRUCKING: "Perez" Suit Alleges Overtime Wage Violation
WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS: Zepeda Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA

WILLIS TOWERS: Consolidated Suit Over Merger Has Been Closed
WILLIS TOWERS: Final Approval Hearing of Stanford Deal on Jan. 20
WILLIS TOWERS: Meriter Suit vs. TWDE Remains Pending in Wisconsin
WILLIS TOWERS: Unit May Seek Summary Judgment in "Sanchez" Suit
YAHOO! INC: "Pawlik" Files Suit Over Data Breach

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Awaits Final OK of "Reyes" Suit Settlement
ZIPTAX LLC: Meyer Given Until Jan. 25 to Re-File Class Cert Bid


                            *********


1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Thompson" Suit in S.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------
J Thompson and William P. Duncanson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Vision
Direct, Inc. and Does 1-15, Case No. 2:16-cv-01183-TC (S.D. Cal.,
November 21, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to restrain
competition in the direct-to-consumer and online markets for
contact lenses.

The Defendants are online retailer of contact lenses and vision
care supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
      David W. Mitchell, Esq.
      Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
      Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
      Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA  92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com
              davidm@rgrdlaw.com
              bomara@rgrdlaw.com
              sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com
              cmedici@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      George C. Aguilar, Esq.
      Gregory Del Gaizo, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP BRIAN J. ROBBINS
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA  92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com
              gdelgaizo@robbinsarroyo.com

1-800-FLOWERS: "Conklin" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled VIRGINIA CONKLIN, and ALYSON CLARK, the
Plaintiffs, v. 1-800-FLOWERS SERVICE SUPPORT CENTER, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00675-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to:

   1. conditionally certify this case as a collective action for
      unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA, for a
      conditional class defined as:

      "all call center "Customer Service Representatives", or
      similar job title, employed by 1-800-Flowers Services
      Support Center, Inc. anywhere in the United States or its
      territories, who were not paid for the overtime hours they
      worked";

   2. approve the Plaintiffs' proposed class notice and consent
      to sue forms;

   3. compel Defendant 1-800-Flowers Service Support Center, Inc.
      to produce, within 14 days of the Court's order granting
      this motion, the full name, all known addresses, e-mail
      addresses, and telephone numbers of class members;

   4. permit Plaintiffs' counsel to send, within 14 days of
      receipt of the class list from Defendant, the Plaintiffs'
      proposed class notice and consent to sue forms via U.S.
      Mail and electronic mail to class members;

   5. allow class members to file consents to sue using an
      electronic signature service;

   6. allow class members 90 days to return their consent to sue
      forms to Plaintiff's counsel;

   7. require 1-800-Flowers post a copy of the class notice in
      all call centers; and

   8. appoint Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty, &
      Proctor, P.A. and Johnson Becker, P.L.L.C, as interim class
      counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9aVEIHaV


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William F. Cash III, Esq.
          Brandon L. Bogle, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS,
          MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435 7059
          E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com
                  bbogle@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          Tim J. Becker, Esq.
          David H. Grounds, Esq.
          Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436 1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436 1801
          E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                  dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
                  mnephew@johnsonbecker.com


52 VAN: Pedraza Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
TOMAS PEDRAZA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. 52 VAN FOOD CORP. (d/b/a BLAKE &
TODD), 47TH STREET FOOD, INC., (d/b/a BLAKE & TODD RESTAURANT),
53RD STREET FOOD LLC, (d/b/a BLAKE & TODD RESTAURANT), and ALEX
RACHOWIN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09019 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA), and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiff Pedraza and all similarly situated
employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without paying
them appropriate overtime compensation or spread of hours
compensation, as required by federal and state laws.

Alex Rachowin owns a chain of restaurants/catering services in New
York, New York under the trade name "Blake & Todd Restaurant".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



2645 MEAT: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Villegas" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Villegas, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. 2645 Meat Corp. d/b/a Associated Supermarket
and Anthony Fernandez, Case No. 1:16-cv-09111 (S.D.N.Y., November
22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a meat shop located at 2645 Webster
Ave, Bronx, NY, 10458-4270.

Jose Villegas is a pro se plaintiff.

5150 RACE TRAILERS: Class Certification Sought in "Romero" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EDUARDO MEIJA ROMERO, individually, and on
behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. 5150 RACE
TRAILERS, INC., and MICHAEL DEAN WALKER, individually, Case No.
1:16-cv-00063 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to:

   (1) authorize the case to proceed as a collective action for
       overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act on
       behalf of non-exempt employees who worked as laborers for
       Defendant within the last three years;

   (2) issue an order directing the Defendant to immediately
       provide a list of names, last known addresses, and last
       known telephone numbers for all putative class members
       within the last three years;

   (3) issue an order that notice be prominently posted at the
       Defendant's facility where putative class members work,
       attached to current employees' next scheduled paycheck,
       and be mailed to the employees so that they can assert
       their claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation;
       and

   (4) order that the opt in the Plaintiffs' Consent Forms be
       deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zIGKXPa6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Russell, Esq.
          Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
          GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER
          SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: (615) 354-1144
          E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
                  eemmons@gilbertfirm.com

               - and -

          Heather M. Collins, Esq.
          COLLINS & HUNTER PLLC
          7000 Executive Center Drive, Suite 320
          Brentwood, TN 37027
          Telephone: (615) 724-1996
          E-mail: heather@collinshunter.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          M. Reid Estes, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          424 Church St., Suite 1401
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 620-1737
          Facsimile: (844) 670-6009
          E-mail: restes@dickinsonwright.com


ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Reconsideration Bid to Be Heard Dec. 16
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the hearing on its
motion for reconsideration of the order denying the motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit is scheduled for
December 16, 2016.

In March 2015, following the Company's announcement of the update
to the timing of its planned NDA submission to the FDA for
NUPLAZID and the subsequent decline of the price of its common
stock, two putative securities class action complaints (captioned
Rihn v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 15-cv-0575-BTM-DHB,
and Wright v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 15-cv-0593-
BTM-DHB) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Court") against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers. The complaints
generally alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding the timing of the
Company's planned NDA submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The
complaints sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On April 10 and June 1, 2015, the Court entered orders deferring
the defendants' response to the Rihn and Wright complaints until
after the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and assigned lead
counsel. On May 12, 2015, several putative stockholders filed
separate motions to consolidate the two actions and be appointed
lead plaintiff.

On September 8, 2015, the Court issued an order consolidating the
two actions, appointing lead plaintiff, and assigning lead
counsel. On November 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint with the Court which, like the prior complaints, accused
the defendants of making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the anticipated timing of the Company's
planned NDA submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID.

On January 15, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On September 19, 2016, the Court issued an
order denying the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On
October 18, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration
of the Court's order denying the motion to dismiss. On October 21,
2016, the Company filed its answer to the consolidated complaint.
The hearing on the Company's motion for reconsideration is
scheduled for December 16, 2016.

The Company has assessed such legal proceedings, and given the
unpredictability inherent in litigation, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of these matters. At this time, the Company is
unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may
result from such legal proceedings, and it has not accrued any
amounts in connection with such legal proceedings other than
ongoing attorneys' fees.


ADEPTUS HEALTH: Laborers' Local Sues Over IPO, SPOs Disclosure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laborers' Local 235 Benefit Funds, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. Adeptus Health Inc.,
Thomas S. Hall, Timothy L. Fielding, Richard Covert, Daniel W.
Rosenberg, Gregory W. Scott, Ronald L. Taylor, Jeffery S. Vender,
Steven V. Napolitano, Daniel J. Hosler, Stephen M. Mengert,
Sterling Partners, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Evercore Group L.L.C., Morgan Stanley
& Co. LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., RBC Capital Markets LLC, Dougherty
& Company LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and BMO Capital
Markets Corp., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00881-ALM (E.D. Tex.,
November 16, 2016), is a securities suit that alleges that in
Adeptus Health's Offering Documents for the June 25, 2014 IPO, May
2015 SPO, July 2015 SPO, and June 2016 SPO, Defendants failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations and future prospects.

Adeptus Health Inc. is one of the largest operators of independent
freestanding emergency rooms in the United States and has a large
network of partnerships with certain healthcare systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roger F. Claxton, Esq.
     LAW FIRM OF ROGER F. CLAXTON
     10,000 N. Central Expressway, Suite 725
     Dallas, TX 75231
     Phone: (214) 969-9029
     Fax: (214) 953-0583
     E-mail: roger@claxtonlaw.com

        - and -

     Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
     Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
     SAXENA WHITE P.A.
     5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
     Boca Raton, FL 33486
     Phone: (561) 394-3399
     E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
             lhooker@saxenawhite.com


ALOTERRA FARMS: Faces "Whitley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Whitely, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Aloterra Farms, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02827-SO (N.D.
Ohio, November 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Aloterra Farms, LLC operates a crop farm located in Conneaut, OH.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris P. Wido, Esq.
      Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
      THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Telephone: (216) 291-4744
      Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
      E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com
              Brian.Spitz@spitzlawfirm.com

ANTERO RESOURCES: Meinig Sues Over Denied Rents and Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE TOOD MEINIG and LINDA MEINIG, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ANTERO
RESOURCES, INC., and ANTERO RESOURCES APPALACHIAN CORP., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00222-IMK (N.D. W.Va., Nov. 18,
2016), seeks compensatory and punitive damages exceeding the sum
of $75,000 for each Plaintiff and for each putative class member.

The Plaintiffs were allegedly damaged by Defendants'
misrepresentation and fraudulent misconduct in that Plaintiffs
were denied rents and royalties under the terms of their leases or
as required by law.

According to the complaint, Defendants misrepresented to
Plaintiffs that Defendants were entitled to take deductions from
Plaintiffs' royalty, take the amount of deductions they took,
reduced Plaintiffs' royalty payments, overcharged Plaintiffs for
services, and/or wrongfully claimed Plaintiffs' royalty due was
less than the amount actually due.

The Plaintiffs are co-owners by succession of partial interest in
certain oil and natural gas mineral interests lying and being in
Harrison County, West Virginia. Antero, by and through their
predecessor, subsidiaries and/or partners, leased properties and
acquired the leases of properties in West Virginia. The terms of
Plaintiffs' Lease provide that Defendants, as successors, are
required to pay Plaintiffs $75.00 each three months in advance for
the gas for each every gas well drilled on such premises.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
          Powell & Majestro, PLLC
          405 Capitol Street, Suite P1200
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 346 2889
          Facsimile: (304) 346 2895
          E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com



ARKANSAS: "Avery" Suit Seeks Certification of Detainees Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Robert W. Avery, the Plaintiff v. Sheriff
Helder et al., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-05169-TLB-JRM (D.
Ark.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for a certification of class.

According to the complaint, all potential class members:

   1. are subjected to or have been subjected to privacy
      violations of the visitation being conducted in the
      dayrooms;

   2. have suffered from the calorie and nutrition deficiencies
      of the meal served at Washington County Detention Center;

   3. have suffered as a result of the agreement entered into by
      sheriff Helder and Aramark;

   4. have suffered from the kiosk protocol hampering their 1st
      amendment right to seek the redress of grievances; and

   5. have suffered harm by and through the lack of a detox
      protocol and forced detoxing on a hard concrete floor and
      locked out of their cell.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UFWzt9qW

The Plaintiff appears pro se


ASSET RECOVERY: "Guthrie" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Stephen Guthrie, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Asset
Recovery Solutions, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company,
and Velocity Investments, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability
company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10689 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court for certification of a class of:

   "all persons similarly situated in the State of Alabama from
   whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent time-barred
   and/or dismissed CitiFinancial/Santander Consumer vehicle loan
   debt, via the same form collection letter, that Defendants
   sent to Plaintiff, where the date of last payment is more than
   4 years from the date of the collection letter, from one year
   before the date of this Complaint to the present".

The Plaintiff's Complaint, filed on November 16, 2016, alleges
that Defendants' form debt collection letter, attempting to
collect a time-barred debt, violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Acts (FDCPA).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jwx6nM8e

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 South Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, Illinois 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974 2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974 2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com


AUDI AG: Faces "Platt" Class Suit in North. Dist. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Audi AG and Audi
of America LLC.

The case is captioned Cameron Platt, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Audi AG and Audi of America LLC, Case
No. 3:16-cv-06738-MEJ (N.D. Cal., November 22, 2016).

Audi AG is an automobile manufacturer that designs, engineers,
produces, markets and distributes luxury vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
      Jonathan Krasne Levine, Esq.
      Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker, Esq.
      PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
      180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (415) 692-0772
      Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
      E-mail: bc@pritzkerlevine.com
              jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
              ecp@pritzkerlevine.com

AVID TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Mohanty" Securities Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PRAKASH MOHANTY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. AVID TECHNOLOGY, INC., LOUIS HERNANDEZ, JR,
and ILAN SIDI, Case No. 1:16-cv-12336 (D. Mass., November 21,
2016), is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Avid between August 4, 2016, and Nov. 9, 2016,
inclusive seeking remedies pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Avid, based in Burlington, Massachusetts, markets digital audio
and video editing software used in the film, music, recording,
television, concert, and news industries.  Louis Hernandez, Jr.,
is Avid's President, CEO, and Chairman of its Board of Directors.
Ilan Sidi is Avid's Interim CFO and Vice President of Human
Resources.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP
          110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
          Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
          Telephone: (781) 431-2231
          Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
          E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          600 W Broadway, Suite 1540
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
          E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: (770) 200-3104
          Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
          E-mail: michaelf@johnsonandweaver.com


BAKER BRAVERMAN: Amesbury Seeks Certification of Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LLOYD AMESBURY, on behalf of plaintiff and
the class members defined, the Plaintiff, v. BAKER, BRAVERMAN &
BARBADORO, P.C., and MIDDLESEX SAVINGS BANK, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00598-M-PAS (D.R.I.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify these classes:

Class for Count I consists of:

   (a) all natural persons (b) to whom BB&B sent an initial
   demand letter (c) which stated an amount of the debt (d) which
   did not include all fees and expenses claimed by the creditor
   (e) which letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to
   the filing of this action'; and

Class for Count II consists of:

   (a) all natural persons (b) to whom Middlesex sent a monthly
   statement (c) which stated a principal amount of the debt (d)
   which did not include all fees and expenses claimed by the
   creditor (e) which statement was sent on or after a date one
   year prior to the filing of this action.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Christopher M. Lefebvre,
P.C. and Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed
counsel for the class.

The Defendant BB&B, on behalf of defendant Middlesex, has been
attempting to collect from plaintiff a loan that was used for
personal, family or household purposes, and not for business
purposes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4PcRYCPW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq.
          CLAUDE F. LEFEBVRE AND
          CHRISTOPHER M. LEFEBVRE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 479
          Pawtucket, RI 02862
          Telephone: (401) 728 6060
          Facsimile: (401) 728 6534

               - and -

          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER
          & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


BAXTER INT'L: Faces Antitrust Suit Over IV Solutions in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. is facing an antitrust class action
lawsuit in Illinois, according to the Company's November 7, 2016,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

In November 2016 a purported antitrust class action complaint
seeking monetary and injunctive relief from the company was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers
of IV solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in
connection with a shortage of such solutions.


BERKS, PA: Faces "Derr" Class Suit in East. District Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against The County Of
Berks, Pennsylvania, Kevin Barnhardt, Christian Leinback, Mark
Scott, Berks County Children And Youth Services, Krista
Macilhaney, Crystal Ann Talerico, Brandon Clinton, Milissa Smith
Ream Mroz, Robert Ream, Jr., Boyertown Police Department, Officer
Sean Dickerson, Douglass Township Police Department, Officer Brian
Yost, Chief Bary Templen, Jullie Brennan, and Kelsey Glass
Berks County Children And Youth.

The case is captioned Shannon Derr, Joshua Derr, Sr., JD Jr., a
minor child, CD, a minor child, KC, a minor child, RC, a minor
child, and CC a minor child, and other persons similarly situated
v. The County Of Berks, Pennsylvania, Kevin Barnhardt, Christian
Leinback, Mark Scott, Berks County Children And Youth Services,
Krista Macilhaney, Crystal Ann Talerico, Brandon Clinton, Milissa
Smith Ream Mroz, Robert Ream, Jr., Boyertown Police Department,
Officer Sean Dickerson, Douglass Township Police Department,
Officer Brian Yost, Chief Bary Templen, Jullie Brennan, and Kelsey
Glass Berks County Children And Youth, Case No. 5:16-cv-06142-JLS
(E.D. Penn., November 23, 2016).

The County of Berks is a county located in the U.S. state of
Pennsylvania.

Shannon Derr, Joshua Derr, Sr., JD, Jr., CD, KC, RC, and CC are
pro se plaintiffs.


BF LABS: "Alexander" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KYLE ALEXANDER, and DYLAN SYMINGTON,
on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. BF LABS INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:14-cv-02159-KHV (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant
amended motion for class certification:

Alexander Count I -- KCPA:

   "all persons who (1) pre-paid BFL for ASIC 65 NM generation
   products or ASIC 28 NM generation products between September
   3, 2012 and July 17, 2014, and (2) as of November 18, 2016,
   have not received the product(s) ordered and have not received
   a refund";

Alexander Count II -- Unjust Enrichment:

   "all persons who (1) pre-paid BFL for ASIC 65 NM generation
   products or ASIC 28 NM generation products between
   September 3, 2012 and July 17, 2014, and (2) as of November
   18, 2016, have not received the product(s) ordered and have
   not received a refund";

Alexander Count III -- Conversion:

   "all persons who (1) pre-paid BFL for ASIC 65 NM generation
   products or ASIC 28 NM generation products between
   September 3, 2012 and July 17, 2014, (2) demanded or
   requested a refund, and (3) as of November 18, 2016, have
   not received the product(s) ordered and have not received a
   refund";

Symington Count I -- KCPA:

   "all persons who (1) pre-paid BFL for ASIC 65 NM generation
   products or ASIC 28 NM generation products between September
   3, 2012 and July 17, 2014, and (2) as of November 18, 2016,
   have received the product(s) ordered and have not received a
   refund";

Symington Count II -- Unjust Enrichment:

   "all persons who (1) pre-paid BFL for ASIC 65 NM generation
   products or ASIC 28 NM generation products between September
   3, 2012 and July 17, 2014, and (2) as of November 18, 2016,
   have received the product(s) ordered and have not received a
   refund"; and

Symington Count III -- Conversion:

   "all persons who (1) pre-paid BFL for ASIC 65 NM generation
   products or ASIC 28 NM generation products between September
   3, 2012 and July 17, 2014, and (2) as of November 18, 2016,
   have received the product(s) ordered and have not received a
   refund".

Excluded from each class shall be BF Labs Inc. and any
shareholder, director, officer, or employee of BF Labs Inc.; the
Court and Court personnel; counsel of record for BF Labs
Inc.; and counsel of record for the Named Plaintiffs and
Plaintiffs; and any customers who previously settled with
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to:

   (a) appoint Plaintiffs Kyle Alexander and Dylan Symington as
       class representatives; and

   (b) appoint Plaintiff's counsel Noah K. Wood and Ari N.
       Rodopoulos of the Wood Law Firm, LLC as lead class
       counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8JvEGjQ5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah K. Wood, Esq.
          Ari N. Rodopoulos, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 1800
          Kansas City, MO 64105-5171
          Telephone: (816) 256 3582
          Facsimile: (816) 337 4243
          E-mail: noah@woodlaw.com
                  ari@woodlaw.com


BF WASTE: "Macias" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER MACIAS and JOY HOAR, individuals, Plaintiffs, vs. BF WASTE
SERVICES OF TEXAS, LP, REPUBLIC SERVICES ALLIANCE GROUP, INC., a
Texas Corporation, and REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., d/b/a REPUBLIC
WASTE SERVICES GROUP OF TEXAS, Inc, a Delaware Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00245-J (N.D. Tex., November 10,
2016), is a representative action for alleged unpaid wages and
overtime brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

BF WASTE SERVICES OF TEXAS, LP is engaged in the business of
hauling waste and refuse which necessarily includes the trucking
business or services for commerce in the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip R. Russ, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP R. RUSS
     2700 S. Western, Suite 1200
     Amarillo, TX 79109
     Phone: (806) 358-9293
     Fax: (806) 358-9296


BLATT & HASENMILLER: "Lillegard" Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JANE BISHOP LILLEGARD, Individually and on
behalf of a class, the Plaintiff, v. BLATT, HASENMILLER, LEIBSKER
& MOORE, LLC and UNIFUND CCR, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-08075 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a
class of:

   "(a) all individuals (b) with addresses in Illinois, (c) to
   whom Defendant Blatt mailed a "Notice of Debt" stating that
   "Unifund CCR Partners" is the "Current [sic] Creditor" (d)
   where "Unifund CCR, LLC" is the current creditor (e) which
   letter was sent during the period beginning one year prior to
   the filing of this action and ending 21 days after the filing
   of this action".

The Plaintiff's class action complaint, filed on August 15, 2016,
alleges that Defendant, via its client Unifund, mailed a letter to
Plaintiff that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts
(FDCPA) by falsely stating that Unifund CCR Partners is the
current creditor, and by failing to provide a Notice of Debt that
states the name of the actual creditor to which the debt is owed.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3YRzVraS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 726 6160
          Facsimile: 312 698 5054
          E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com


BLUESTEM BRANDS: "Norris" Suit Overtime Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
TINA NORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLUESTEM BRANDS, INC., BLAIR, LLC.,
and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-03954 (D. Minn,
Nov. 18, 2016), seeks an order from the Court enjoining Defendant
Bluestem and Defendant Blair from their continued violation of the
Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA).  The suit seeks an
award of civil penalties.

The Defendants allegedly failed to compensate their employees for
post-shift compensable time in any amount. The Defendants knew or
should have known that, under the FLSA, Plaintiff should have been
paid overtime "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate" at which she was employed for all compensable pre-
shift time for workweeks in excess of 40 hours.
Despite this, the Defendants failed to pay overtime at one and
one-half times the regular rate for Plaintiff's pre-shift
compensable time.

Bluestem Brands, headquartered in suburban Minneapolis, is the
parent to three fast-growing multichannel retail brands.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          David H. Grounds, Esq.
          Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436 1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436 1801
          E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                  dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
                  mnephew@johnsonbecker.com



BUFFALO TRACE: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Bottle Labeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS PARKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BUFFALO TRACE DISTILLERY, INC., OLD
CHARTER DISTILLERY CO., and SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-08986 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to enjoin
the unlawful acts and practices of Defendants' bottle labeling
that misleads consumers to believe that their bourbon is aged 8
years.

According to the complaint, the Defendants represent that Old
Charter is an 8-year aged bourbon. That is false and misleading.
Old Charter used to be aged for 8 years, but Defendants stopped
that practice in approximately January 2014. The bourbon bearing
the Old Charter name is now aged for significantly less than 8
years and is of inferior quality to its former self. But in an
attempt to upsell the newer, younger, and inferior product,
Defendants' bottle labeling still misleads consumers to believe
that the bourbon is aged 8 years. The misrepresentation appears in
three places on the bottle: on the neck, on its own label on the
top of the body, and in the text portion which reads "gently
matured for eight seasons in century old brick warehouses".

Buffalo Trace Distillery is a distillery located in Frankfort,
Kentucky. It has historically been known by several names,
including most notably, the George T. Stagg Distillery and the
O.F.C. Distillery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837 7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989 9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com
                  ykopel@bursor.com


C BASTOS: Sandoval Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE SANDOVAL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. C. BASTOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. (d/b/a
CARLOS BASTOS CONSTRUCTION) and CARLOS BASTOS, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-09020 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Sandoval regularly
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation for any of the
hours that he worked each week. Rather, the Defendants failed to
maintain accurate records of hours worked and failed to pay
Plaintiff Sandoval appropriately for any hours worked.

The Defendants own, operate, and/or control a construction company
located at 114 Primrose Avenue, Mt. Vernon, New York 10550 under
the name "Carlos Bastos Construction".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620


CALIFORNIA: Classes Certified in "Amador" Strip-Search Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MARY AMADOR, ET AL., the Plaintiff, v.
SHERIFF LEROY D. BACA, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:10-cv-
01649-SVW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Stephen V. Wilson entered an
order granting Plaintiff's renewed motion for certification under
Rule 23(C)(4) and certifying Class No. 1 and Class No. 2, with
subclasses.

Class No. 1 - Simultaneous Search Class, March, 2008--July,
2011:

The events common to this class are that two lines of women were
searched in Bus Bay No. 3, against opposite walls, and directed to
face each other. The groups ranged upwards of 60 women. They were
told to undress and a guard would search their exposed top half,
including underneath breasts, armpits, and rolls of fat. During
this time, the female on the opposite wall was facing forward,
viewing the search occurring. Similarly, each female had to watch
while this search was done to the person across from them and be
exposed to that female's private body parts. There was also
nothing preventing the women from viewing searches to their left
and right. After the search of the upper part of the body, the
visual body cavity ("vbc") inspection occurred. In this
inspection, the women were instructed to remove their underwear,
turn around, bend at the waist, and look through their legs during
this search. The women were ordered to manually spread their labia
to expose their vaginal opening. Both lines did this at the same
time, so that the women would view the female across from them in
the same position, with their genitals exposed. When the women
undressed, the clothes were placed directly on the ground. The
women were barefoot on a porous, concrete slab";

1. Weather Subclass

This subclass will include women in class No. 1 who were also
subjected to temperatures of 77 degrees or lower.

2. Menstruation Subclass:

This subclass will include women in class No. 1 who were
menstruating at the time the search occurred. There were
additional policies targeted towards menstruating women: in front
of the group they would be ordered to (1) self-identify that they
were currently menstruating, (2) remove their tampon or sanitary
pad, and (3) insert a new one.

Class no. 2 - One-Line-At-A-Time Search Class, July, 2011 --
January 1, 2015:

The events common to this class are that two lines of women were
searched in Bus Bay No. 3, against opposite walls, and directed to
face the wall. The group size was limited to 24 women
at a time (except for the subclass, noted below). Then, one line
at a time would face forward and undress. Opposite them would be a
female facing the wall so that no female would directly view the
female across from them -- except their backside. There was
nothing preventing the women from viewing searches to their left
and right. The search itself was essentially the same (checking
underneath breasts, armpits, and rolls of fat). The vbc inspection
was also one line at a time and otherwise essentially the same
(women were told to face the wall, bend at the waist, manually
spread their labia, and look between their legs). During the vbc
inspection the women would not be viewing the female across from
them in the same position, rather the female across from them
would be facing the wall. The women placed their clothes on tables
(except for the subclass, noted below). They were barefoot on a
porous, concrete slab.

1. Clothes and Group Size Subclass

Women in class No 2 who were searched between July 2011 -- March
2013 had the following common conditions between them: (1)
searched in groups upwards of 60, and (2) clothes were put
directly on the floor.

2. Weather Subclass

This subclass will include women in class No. 2 who were also
subjected to temperatures of 77 degrees or lower.

3. Menstruation Subclass

This subclass will include women in class #2 who were menstruating
at the time the search occurred. There were additional policies
targeted towards menstruating women: in front of the group they
would be ordered to (1) self-identify that they were currently
menstruating, (2) remove their tampon or sanitary pad, and (3)
insert a new one.

The Court further granted Plaintiffs 14 days to amend the
pleadings in order to cure the defect of having no named Plaintiff
to represent Class no. 2.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gYQgpU0r


CALLSMART INC: Dolemba Class Cert. Bid Continued to Jan. 26
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Scott Dolemba, the Plaintiff, v.
CallSmart, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04863 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Jorge L. Alonso entered an order continuing
Plaintiff's motion for class certification to January 26, 2017, at
9:30 a.m., according to the docket entry made by the Clerk on
November 17, 2016.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M4sBEENZ


CARSON SMITHFIELD: Class Certification Sought in "Sievert" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled GORDON SIEVERT, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CARSON
SMITHFIELD, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01547-LA (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff moves the court to certify a class and to
stay the motion for class certification, and to grant Plaintiff
(and Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the motion.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint the Plaintiff as
its representative, and appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted), and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not.  In dicta, the Supreme Court left
open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action
complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing
funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4WUGyXsp

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 (fax)
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


CATALINA RESTAURANT: Class Cert. Sought in Warn Act Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit re: Catalina Restaurant Group Warn Act Litigation,
Case No. 2:15-cv-2626-DDP-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will
move the Court at a hearing on January 23, 2017, for:

   (a) certification of a Nationwide Class pursuant to Rule 23 of
       the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure consisting of:

       "all of Defendants' employees who, on or within 90 days of
        April 1, 2015, were terminated without cause from
        employment at Defendants' place of business at 2200
        Faraday Ave. No. 250, Carlsbad, CA 92008, a Coco's
        Bakery, or a Carrows Restaurant as part of a mass layoff
        or plant closing without being provided 60 days' written
        notice;

   (b) certification of a California Class pursuant to Rule 23 of
       the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure consisting of:

       "all of Defendants' employees in California who, on or
       within 90 days of April 1, 2015, were terminated without
       cause from employment at Defendants' place of business at
       2200 Faraday Ave. No. 250, Carlsbad, CA 92008, a Coco's
       Bakery, or a Carrows Restaurant as part of a mass layoff
       or plant closing without being provided 60 days' written
       notice;

   (c) appointment of Plaintiffs Phoebe Patterson, Kanani Fast,
       Rebekkah Salazar, Ashley Watts, Aisha Rogers, Aaron
       Kakavand, Tracy Salazar, Victoria Andrade, Gerardo Chavez,
       Joelle Kennedy, Christi Harrell, Gene Watts, John Manley,
       Roseann Barnett, Gary Bowles, Maria Ramirez, Violeta
       Ramirez, Andrew Hodge, and Jose Sandoval as the Class
       Representatives for the Nationwide Class;

   (d) appointment of Plaintiffs Kanani Fast, Rebekkah Salazar,
       Ashley Watts, Aisha Rogers, Aaron Kakavand, Tracy Salazar,
       Victoria Andrade, Gerardo Chavez, Joelle Kennedy, Christi
       Harrell, Gene Watts, John Manley, Roseann Barnett, Gary
       Bowles, Maria Ramirez, Violeta Ramirez, Andrew Hodge, and
       Jose Sandoval as the Class Representatives for the
       California Class;

   (e) appointment of Girard Gibbs LLP as lead class counsel and
       the Desai Law Firm, P.C. as well as Capstone Law, APC as
       co-class counsel; and

   (f) such other and further relief as the Court may deem
       proper.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lvJv8URm

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          AJ de Bartolomeo, Esq.
          Linda Lam, Esq.
          Michael Schrag, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ajd@classlawgroup.com
                  mls@classlawgroup.com
                  lpl@classlawgroup.com


CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Pressman Seeks Class Certification Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled PRESSMAN, INC. d/b/a PILL BOX
PHARMACY & MEDICAL SUPPLY, a Florida corporation, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE ENGAGEMENT
SOLUTIONS, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, AMARIN PHARMA,
INC., BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP,
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, SEBELA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
PSKW, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-12, Case No. 0:16-cv-62472-WJZ (S.D.
Fla.), moves for an order certifying this class:

     Each person that was sent one or more telephone facsimile
     messages (faxes) promoting an "MFG Co-Pay Card," identifying
     "BIN: 004682," and indicating that fax opt-out requests
     could be submitted by fax to 888-261-0360 or by live call to
     888-261-0361.

Pressman Inc. informs the Court that it filed the Motion soon
after the filing of its first amended class action complaint in
order to avoid an attempt by the Defendants to moot its individual
claims in the class action.  The Plaintiff anticipates discovering
information or things during the litigation that it will offer in
support of class certification and, therefore, will seek leave to
initiate discovery as soon as practicable.

The case involves common fact questions about the Defendants'
alleged fax campaign and common legal questions under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hV0hsfA0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          P.O. Box 416474
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5501
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com


CHAPEI LLC: Court Refuses to Conditionally Certify "Wang" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael A. Shipp denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion to conditionally certify the putative collective action
entitled WEIGANG WANG, et al. v. CHAPEI LLC d/b/a WOK EMPIRE, et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02950-MAS-DEA (D.N.J.).

Based on the Court's review of Plaintiffs' submissions, the Court
finds that Plaintiffs applied the incorrect standard for
collective action certification, Judge Shipp opined.  Judge Shipp
explains that although the "modest factual showing" standard is
appropriate at the "notice stage" of litigation when little or no
discovery has taken place, a stricter standard is more appropriate
when plaintiffs move for conditional certification near or after
the close of discovery.

"Here, the parties were near the close of discovery when
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, and discovery has since
closed with the exception of Plaintiffs' pending Motion for
Reconsideration," Judge Shipp points out.

Judge Shipp rules that the Plaintiffs may file a Motion to Certify
Collective Action, applying the applicable "stricter standard" as
set forth in Zavala, 691 F.3d at 536-3 7.

If Judge Douglas E. Arpert denies Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration, the Plaintiffs must file their Motion to Certify
Collective Action within 30 days of Judge Arpert's Order denying
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, Judge Shipp states.
If Judge Arpert grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration
and orders further discovery, the Plaintiffs must file their
Motion to Certify Collective Action within 30 days of the close of
discovery as set forth by Judge Arpert.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7j0Z1z6Z


CHARTER TOWNSHIP: Court Denied Class Cert. Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GARNER PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT, the
Plaintiff, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF REDFORD, the Defendant, Case No.
2:15-cv-14100-MAG-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
entered an order denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for
class certification filed on August 12, 2016.

The Court said, "In this case, Plaintiff and Defendant raise
several novel issues that make certification impracticable at this
time. For instance, at argument, regarding the "typicality" and
"commonality" prerequisites to class certification, the parties
disagreed whether a property manager must show that, but for the
alleged due process violation, he would nevertheless have been
cited for an ordinance violation. And, if it is assumed that the
citation would have issued in any case, it is disputed whether a
putative class member would have to show that he would have
appealed and/or succeeded in that appeal. Further, it is not
altogether clear what monetary relief Plaintiff requests (i.e., a
refund of fines paid, versus a reimbursement of fines plus repair
costs). Regarding Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim, it is
disputed whether the possibility of an individual putative class
member's consent defeats typicality. Finally, at the hearing, the
Defendant raised the possibility that Plaintiff cannot serve as a
class representative because it lacks standing, having suffered no
actual injury due to a contractual entitlement to reimbursement.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of the unanswered questions
surrounding the nature of Plaintiff's claims or Defendant's
responses to them. Resolving these and other merits claims likely
will inform whether Plaintiff satisfies the prerequisites for
class certification. And, where these merits claims do not
directly implicate the certification decision (such as Defendant's
argument that its inspection scheme facially complies with the
Fourth Amendment, notwithstanding affirmative consent), they
nevertheless tend to apply to all putative class members equally,
potentially winnowing the putative class and reducing notice and
litigation costs. The Court determines that dispositive motions
are necessary -- both to narrow the issues and bring much-needed
clarity to those that remain".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=i4W5QDNq


COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Suits in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation is facing two purported
securities class action lawsuits in the New Jersey District Court
and another lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, according
to the Company's November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

On October 5, 2016, and October 27, 2016, two purported securities
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, naming the Company and
certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on
allegedly false or misleading statements related to potential
violations of the FCPA, the Company's business, prospects, and
operations and the effectiveness of the Company's internal control
over financial reporting and its disclosure controls and
procedures. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and an award
of the costs and attorneys' and experts' fees of the plaintiff and
a purported class of stockholders who purchased the Company's
common stock during the period between February 25, 2016 and
September 30, 2016.

On October 31, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the Bergen County
Superior Court - Law Division, New Jersey, naming the Company, all
of its directors and certain of its current and former executive
officers as defendants. The Company has not yet been served with
the complaint.

Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation provides information
technology (IT), consulting, and business process services
worldwide.


COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Stathakos, et al. Seek Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JEANNE and NICOLAS STATHAKOS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY; COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR USA CORPORATION,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-04543-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court at a hearing on March 28, 2017, for
an order certifying a Plaintiff class consisting of:

"all consumers who purchased an Outlet SMU Build garment at a
Columbia Outlet store in the State of California since July 1,
2014, through the conclusion of this action".

Defendants Columbia Sportswear Company and Columbia Sportswear USA
Corp. allegedly engage in a uniform, materially misleading
advertising practice that affects each and every consumer shopping
at their Columbia Outlet stores in California. Columbia affixes
price tags to products it designs and manufactures for exclusive
sale at its outlet stores that mislead consumers into believing
those products have been marked down from a higher, former price.
In fact, none of those products ever sold anywhere at the higher
price on their price tags. Columbia's misleading advertising is
identical across the nearly 600 outlet exclusive products covered
by Plaintiffs' proposed class definition. Every member of the
Proposed Class has been exposed to the same materially misleading
price representations, and has suffered the same injury as a
result.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristen Law Sagafi, Esq.
          Martin D. Quinones, Esq.
          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone (510) 254 6808
          Facsimile (510) 210 0571
          E-mail: ksagafi@tzlegal.com
                  mquinones@tzlegal.com
                  hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  jkaliel@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525 4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525 4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  edelsberg@kolawyers.com


COLUMBINE MANAGEMENT: "Null" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY NULL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals and on behalf of the Proposed Rule 23 Class, the
Plaintiff, v. COLUMBINE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. AND
GREENFIELD MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-02826 (D. Col., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to recover damages
as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' willful violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Colorado Wage Act
(CWA), and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order Number 31 (the CMWO).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was regularly required
to work a substantial amount of time off-the-clock as part of her
job. Defendants suffered or permitted Plaintiff and other
similarly situated former and/or current employees' to routinely
perform off-the-clock work by automatically deducting 30 minutes
for a meal break from each shift worked of 8 hours or more, while
still requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals
to continue to work on the nursing floor and care for the patients
while being clocked out. The Plaintiff was never compensated for
this time.

Columbine Management was founded in 2000. The company's line of
business includes providing management services on a contract or
fee basis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Grounds, Esq.
          Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436 1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436 1801
          E-mail: mnephew@johnsonbecker.com
                  dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: "Rogers" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Keith Rogers, the Plaintiff, v. Sheriff
of Cook County and Cook County, Illinois, the Defendants, Case No.
1:15-cv-11632 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to order
that this case may proceed as a class action for:

   "all persons who entered the Cook County Jail on and after
   December 23, 2013 who were lawfully taking an opioid
   antagonist, as defined in 42 C.F.R. 8.12(h)(2), who were not
   then on parole or held on a warrant from another jurisdiction,
   and who were not pregnant".

According to the complaint, tapering methadone results in painful
withdrawal symptoms, including "anxiety, chills, muscle pain
(myalgia) and weakness, tremor, lethargy and drowsiness,
restlessness and irritability, nausea and vomiting and diarrhoea."
Amato, Davoli, Minozzi, Ferroni, Ali, and Ferri,
Methadone at Tapered Doses for the Management of Opioid
Withdrawal, COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, Issue 2, Art
No. CD003409 at 2 (2013). Plaintiff suffered many of these
symptoms until he resumed his regular methadone dosage when he
left the Jail when the withdrawal symptoms began to gradually
subside.

Plaintiff raises two claims in this lawsuit. The first is about
the delay in receiving methadone. This claim is at issue for a
class in Parish v. Sheriff, N.D. Ill., No. 07-cv-4369.  The second
claim focuses on the tapering policy, which is not part of Parish.
The overwhelming majority of persons subjected to the tapering
policy are, like plaintiff, released from custody before
completing the regimen. This is not surprising because research
sponsored by the Sheriff in 2011 showed that half of all detainees
are at the Jail for 12 or fewer days. Cook County Sheriff's
Reentry Council Research Bulletin, March 2011 at 4. Even if
completed, tapering leaves those released from the jail at risk of
relapse "because of the physical and emotional stress of
attempting to discontinue medication." Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment, Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Addiction in
Opioid Treatment Programs 117 (2005).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UFWzt9qW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth N. Flaxman, Esq.
          Joel A. Flaxman, Esq.
          200 S Michigan Ave, Ste 201
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 427 3200


CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Hernandez Moves for Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Enid Hernandez moves the Court to certify the class
described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled ENID HERNANDEZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CONSTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-01525 (E.D.
Wisc.), and further requests that the Court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the
parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single
page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=goRia6OW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONTROL4 CORPORATION: "Panusis" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LADYBETH PANUSIS, an individual on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CONTROL4 CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-CV-01179-DOC-RAO (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order granting
class certification at a hearing on December 19, 2016.

The Plaintiff defined class as:

   "all Control4 employees who signed the Non-Compete Agreement
   and/or a similar agreement restraining their ability to pursue
   a business, profession or trade pursuant to Federal Rule of
   Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to:

   (1) appoint Plaintiff Ladybeth Panusis as the class
       representative;

   (2) appoint Shanberg, Stafford & Bartz LLP as the attorneys
       for the class; and

   (3) order all other relief to allow this case to proceed as a
       class action.

The Defendant is a publicly traded corporation that markets and
sells home automation services. Control4, as a matter of policy
and practice, requires its California-based employees, as a
condition of their employment, to sign an agreement entitled
Confidential Information, Nonsolicitation, Noncompetition, and
Invention Assignment Agreement (Non-Compete Agreement) that
unlawfully restrains them from pursuing their profession, trade or
business under California Business and Professions Code.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sojozE0C

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross E. Shanberg, Esq.
          Shane C. Stafford, Esq.
          Aaron A. Bartz, Esq.
          SHANBERG, STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP
          The Atrium, 19200 Von Karman Ave No 400
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: 1 949 622 5444


COSTAMAR EXPRESS: Faces "Solis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ignacio Solis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Costamar Express Cargo & Shipping, Inc. and Maria
Victoria Arcos, Case No. 1:16-cv-06521 (E.D.N.Y., November 22,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a shipping company in Corona, New
York.

Ignacio Solis is a pro se plaintiff.

CRESCENT CONSULTING: Faces "Whitlow" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Whitlow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Crescent Consulting, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-01330-R
(W.D. Ok., November 21, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Crescent Consulting, LLC is an oil and gas services company
operating throughout the United States, including in Texas and
Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PALM BEACH, FL: Boyce Trans Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BOYCE TRANS, INC., a Florida corporation
d/b/a A1A AIRPORT and LIMOUSINE SERVICE, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of
Florida, the Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-81242-RLR (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

   "all vehicle for hire companies that, from March 9, 2105,
   through April 19, 2016, were licensed to operate in Palm Beach
   County, Florida and were subject to the requirements of the
   Code, excluding companies that met the definition of "taxicab"
   under the 2008 ordinance".

Excluded from the Class are (1) PBC and its employees, officers,
directors, legal representatives, successors or wholly or partly
owned subsidiaries or affiliates; (2) the named plaintiffs in VTS
Transportation, et al vs. Palm Beach County, Case No: 15-CV-80560-
ROSENBERG; (3) class counsel and their employees; and (4) the
judicial officers, their immediate family members, and court staff
assigned to this case.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class asserting a claim for
violation of the right to equal protection arising out of Palm
Beach County's decision to give to Rasier, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company and subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc.
(Uber), a temporary operating agreement that relieved Uber of the
obligation to comply with various elements of the Palm Beach
County vehicle for hire (VFH) ordinance. Chapter 19, Article IX of
the Palm Beach County Code and Ordinances sets forth various
requirements with which all vehicles for hire must comply in order
to provide VFH services within Palm Beach County. Each of the
Plaintiffs and the putative class members complied with the
obligations of the VFH ordinance during the term of the TOA, while
Uber was exempted.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SkEm3UEH

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas F. Eaton, Esq.
          EATON & WOLK, PL
          One Biscayne Tower
          2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 249 1640
          Facsimile: (786) 350 3079
          E-mail: deaton@eatonwolk.com

               - and -

          Robert T. Slatoff, Esq.
          Constantina Alexandrou Mirabile, Esq.
          FRANK, WEINBERG & BLACK, P.L.
          Lynn Financial Center
          1875 NW Corporate Blvd., Suite 100
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 989 0700
          Facsimile: (954) 474 9850
          E-mail: rslatoff@fwblaw.net
                  camirabile@fwblaw.net
                  awallain@fwblaw.net


DILLON LAW: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Tamera Shearon-Myers, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. The Dillon Law Firm, P.C., Case No. 1:16-cv-
04346-CAP-JFK (N.D. Ga., November 22, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Dillon Law Firm, P.C. operates a law firm located at 1130
Hurricane Shoals Rd NE #600, Lawrenceville, GA 30043.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marques J. Carter, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MARQUES J. CARTER
      Suite 100, 3400 Chapel Hill Road
      Douglasville, GA 30135
      Telephone: (888) 595-9111
      Facsimile: (866) 842-3303
      E-mail: mjclawllc@comcast.net


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid Continued to Jan. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Rachel Gingerich, the Plaintiff, v. Discover
Financial Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10226
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman entered an order
continuing Plaintiff's motion to certify a class to January 6,
2017 at 09:00 AM.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on November 21,
2016, status hearing set for November 28, 2016 is stricken and
reset to January 6, 2017 at 09:00 AM. The applications by Shannon
E. Dudic and Geoffrey L. Warner for leave to appear pro hac vice
are granted.

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


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Palmer" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RAY PALMER, JR., on behalf of himself, and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY
SOLUTIONS LLC, a South Carolina limited liability
company, and CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, the Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-00059-PGB-KRS (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff and Defendants ask the Court an order
certifying the case to proceed as a class action and to grant
preliminary approval of the parties' settlement agreement.

The settlement class is defined as:

   "(i) all persons with addresses in Florida; (ii) to whom
   Defendant Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC sent, or caused to be
   sent, a letter in the form of Exhibit A attached to the
   Complaint on behalf of Cascade Capital LLC; (iii) in an
   attempt to collect an alleged debt originally due Bank of
   America; (iv) which, as shown by the nature of the alleged
   debt, Defendants' records, or the records of the original
   creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household
   purposes; (v) on which the last payment was made five or more
   years prior to the date of mailing of the letter; and (vi)
   during the year prior to the filing".

Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendants have reviewed and
analyzed the legal and factual issues presented in this action,
the risks and exposure involved in pursing the litigation to
conclusion, the likelihood of recovering damages in excess of
those obtained through this settlement, the protracted
nature of the litigation and the likely costs and possible
outcomes of one or more procedural and substantive appeals. Based
upon their review and analysis, and after arm's-length
negotiations, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into the Agreement.

The parties further ask the Court to:

   1. appoint Plaintiff Ray Palmer, Jr. as Class Representative;

   2. appoint Donald E. Petersen and O. Randolph Bragg as Class
      Counsel;

   3. directs the mailing of the Class Notice subject to any
      medication deemed necessary by the Court; and

   4. set dates for opt-outs and objections, and schedules a
      hearing for final approval.

The parties have agreed to these settlement terms:

   a. Defendant Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, on behalf of
      itself and Defendant Cascade Capital, LLC, shall pay a
      total of $24,000.00 to the class for statutory damages
      pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1692k(a)(2)(B) to be
      distributed on a pro rata basis to each class member who
      does not timely opt out or exclude himself or herself from
      the class settlement (Class Settlement Fund);

   b. Defendant Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, on behalf of
      itself and Defendant Cascade Capital, LLC, shall pay
      Plaintiff a total of $500.00 in recognition for his service
      as Class Representative, and Defendant Dynamic Recovery
      Solutions LLC, on behalf of itself and Defendant Cascade
      Capital, LLC, shall pay an additional total of $500.00 to
      Plaintiff as his statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
      section 1692k (this is in addition to and will not reduce
      or otherwise affect the $24,000.00 Class Settlement Fund);

   c. Plaintiff shall be deemed the prevailing and successful
      party solely for purposes of an award of costs and attorney
      fees. Defendant Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, on behalf
      of itself and Defendant Cascade Capital, LLC, shall pay
      Plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as
      determined or approved by the Court pursuant to Rule 23(h)
      if the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
      cannot first be agreed upon by the Parties (this is in
      addition to and will not reduce or otherwise affect the
      $24,000.00 Class Settlement Fund); and

   d. Defendant Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, on behalf of
      itself and Defendant Cascade Capital, LLC, shall pay the
      reasonable costs of class notice, distribution, and
      administration directly to the class administrator in
      advance of the services necessitating any such costs (this
      is in addition to and will not reduce or otherwise affect
      the $24,000.00 Class Settlement Fund).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald E. Petersen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DONALD E. PETERSEN
          Post Office Box 1948
          Orlando, FL 32802-1948
          Telephone:: 407 648 9050
          E-mail: petersen221@yahoo.com

               - and -

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOC.
          25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372 8822
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ernest H. Kohlmyer, III, Esq.
          ERNEST H. KOHLMYER, III, ESQ. LLM
          URBAN, THEIR, FEDERER & CHINNERY, P.A.
          200 South Orange Avenue; Suite 20000
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 245 8352
          Facsimile: (407) 245 8361
          E-mail: Kohlmyer@urbanthier.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Rubenstein, Esq.
          BRIAN RUBENSTEIN, ESQ
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          4301 West Boy Scout Boulevard; Suit 400
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 864 9319
          Facsimile: (813) 286 2900
          E-mail: Brian.Rubenstein@ckslegal.com


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Feb. 3 Hearing on Securities Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynavax Technologies Corporation is awaiting final approval of its
agreement to settle a consolidated securities litigation, which is
currently set to be heard on February 3, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

On June 18, 2013, the first of two substantially similar
securities class action complaints was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed
on June 26, 2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all
related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred
to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case
entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation.

On September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel. On November 12, 2013, lead plaintiff filed his
consolidated class action complaint (the "consolidated
complaint"), which named a former director of the Company as a
defendant in addition to the Company and the former executive
officers identified in the two prior complaints (collectively, the
"defendants"). The consolidated complaint alleged that between
April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company and certain of its
executive officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in
connection with statements related to the Company's product,
HEPLISAV-B, an investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine. The
consolidated complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other costs.  On January 10, 2014, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  On March
10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint. The opposition introduced a new theory
of the case, so defendants permitted plaintiffs to amend their
complaint.

On April 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint ("ACC"). The ACC added a new plaintiff and several new
defendants, and alleged that, between April 26, 2012 and June 10,
2013, the Company, certain of its executive officers and
directors, and entities related to certain of its directors,
violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with statements
related to the Company's product candidate, HEPLISAV-B.
Specifically, the ACC alleged that the Company made fraudulent
misrepresentations or omissions regarding the manufacture of
HEPLISAV-B and that certain insiders unlawfully profited from such
misrepresentations or omissions. The ACC sought unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On June 6,
2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the ACC. On August 8,
2014, plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that motion.

On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed the second amended
complaint ("SAC") to remove or correct erroneous statements
attributed to confidential witnesses. The SAC retains all
allegations asserted in the ACC. On October 10, 2014, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On November 10, 2014,
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss
the SAC. The Company filed its reply in support of the motion on
December 1, 2014.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss the SAC occurred on Feb. 20,
2015. The Court granted the motion with respect to some of the
alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the Company or
certain named defendants as well as some of the insider trading
claims against certain insiders and denied the motion to dismiss
with respect to other alleged misrepresentations and omissions and
insider trading claims. The Company filed an answer to the SAC on
April 6, 2015.

On September 7, 2016, the parties signed the Stipulation of
Settlement, which provides for a payment of $4.5 million by the
defendants, of which Dynavax is responsible for $4.1 million, and
will result in a dismissal and release of all claims against the
defendants in connection with the securities class action, upon
final court approval. The settlement will be paid for by the
Company's insurance carriers. On October 17, 2016, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement and set a hearing for final
approval for February 3, 2017.


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Shumake" Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SHUMAKE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, EDDIE GRAY, and MICHAEL S. OSTRACH, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:16-cv-06707-JSW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants violations of
federal securities laws and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act).

According to the complaint, on November 14, 2016, the Company
issued a press release, announcing that Dynavax received a
Complete Response Letter from the FDA on the Company's Revised BLA
for HEPLISAV-B (TM). The Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) there were significant adverse events associated with
Dynavax's HEPLISAV-B product, including an imbalance in the number
of cardiac events during use; (ii) consequently, a commercial
product launch of HEPLISAV-B was less imminent than Dynavax had
led investors to believe; and (iii) as a result, Dynavax's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. As the truth about HEPLISAV-B (TM) and the Company's
ability to commercialize it was revealed through the issuance of
the Company's November 14, 2016 press release, the Company's stock
price declined from a closing price of $11.60 per share on
November 11, 2016, to close at $4.10 per share on November 14,
2016, a drop of $7.50 per share, or approximately 64%. The
Defendants intentionally and/or recklessly misrepresented the true
state of Dynavax's HEPLISAV-B (TM) vaccine's safety profile and
potential for commercialization. Unbeknownst to investors,
Defendants' statements were materially false and/or inaccurate and
had the effect of artificially inflating the Company's stock
price. When the fraud was revealed, Dynavax's stock price dropped
precipitously. Plaintiff and all other members of the Class were
damaged as a result thereof.

Dynavax is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that uses
biology to discover and develop novel vaccines and therapeutics.
Dynavax's development programs are focused on vaccines and cancer
immunotherapy. The Company's leading product candidate is
HEPLISAV-B (TM). HEPLISAV-B (TM) is a two-dose hepatitis B
vaccine. If HEPLISAV-B (TM) is approved and commercialized, it
will compete against the conventional three-dose hepatitis B
vaccines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN,
          MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 429 5272
          Facsimile: (866) 300 7367
          E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com
                  ktang@sfmslaw.com


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Soontjens" Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SOONTJENS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, EDDIE GRAY, and MICHAEL S. OSTRACH, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-06690 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants violations of
federal securities laws and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act).

According to the complaint, on November 14, 2016, the Company
issued a press release, announcing that Dynavax received a
Complete Response Letter from the FDA on the Company's Revised BLA
for HEPLISAV-B (TM). The Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) there were significant adverse events associated with
Dynavax's HEPLISAV-B product, including an imbalance in the number
of cardiac events during use; (ii) consequently, a commercial
product launch of HEPLISAV-B was less imminent than Dynavax had
led investors to believe; and (iii) as a result, Dynavax's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. As the truth about HEPLISAV-B (TM) and the Company's
ability to commercialize it was revealed through the issuance of
the Company's November 14, 2016 press release, the Company's stock
price declined from a closing price of $11.60 per share on
November 11, 2016, to close at $4.10 per share on November 14,
2016, a drop of $7.50 per share, or approximately 64%. The
Defendants intentionally and/or recklessly misrepresented the true
state of Dynavax's HEPLISAV-B (TM) vaccine's safety profile and
potential for commercialization. Unbeknownst to investors,
Defendants' statements were materially false and/or inaccurate and
had the effect of artificially inflating the Company's stock
price. When the fraud was revealed, Dynavax's stock price dropped
precipitously. Plaintiff and all other members of the Class were
damaged as a result thereof.

Dynavax is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that uses
biology to discover and develop novel vaccines and therapeutics.
Dynavax's development programs are focused on vaccines and cancer
immunotherapy. The Company's leading product candidate is
HEPLISAV-B (TM). HEPLISAV-B (TM) is a two-dose hepatitis B
vaccine. If HEPLISAV-B (TM) is approved and commercialized; it
will compete against the conventional three-dose hepatitis B
vaccines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532 6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com


E-COMMERCE CHINA: Fasano et al. File Securities Suit Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Fasano; Altimeo Optimum Fund; Altimeo Asset Management;
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Guoqing Li; Peggy Yu Yu; Dangdang Holding Company,
Ltd.; E-Commerce China Dangdang Inc.; Kewen Holding Co. Ltd.;
Science & Culture Ltd.; First Profit Management, Ltd.; Danqian
Yao; Lijun Chen; Min Kan; Ruby Rong Lu; Ke Zhang; and Xiaolong Li,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08759 (S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2016),
is a securities suit over E-Commerce China Dangdang, Inc.'s going-
private transaction.

Plaintiffs seek damages as a result of Dangdang's board of
directors agreeing to sell Dangdang to a buyers' group that held
83.6% voting power and included controlling stockholder and Chief
Executive Officer, Guoqing Li and his wife, Chairwoman Peggy Yu Yu
on allegedly grossly unfair terms that (i) improperly favored Li's
group over another all-cash offer and (ii) badly underpaid the
Company's minority shareholders.

E-Commerce China Dangdang Inc. is a business-to-consumer e-
commerce company in China.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Samuel J. Lieberman, Esq.
     Douglas R. Hirsch, Esq.
     Ben Hutman, Esq.
     SADIS & GOLDBERG LLP
     551 Fifth Avenue, 21st Floor
     New York, NY 10176
     Phone: (212) 573-8164


ELECTRICITY MAINE: Sued Over Electricity Cost Savings Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE VEILLEUX, and JENNIFER CHON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. ELECTRICITY
MAINE, LLC, PROVIDER POWER, LLC, SPARK HOLDCO, LLC, KEVIN DEAN,
and EMILE CLAVET, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00571-NT (D.
Maine, Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to remedy the significant financial
harm caused by Defendant' electricity cost savings scheme.

According to the complaint, between 2011 and 2014, The Defendant
Electricity Maine, LLC, enrolled nearly 200,000 Maine households
and small businesses in its electricity-supply services with the
promise of substantial cost savings. Instead of decreasing
consumers' electricity bills, however, Electricity Maine, through
Defendants' fraud and deception, cost Maine ratepayers at least
$35 million. The combination of fraudulent and misleading
marketing and promotion, and artificially low promotional rates,
allowed Electricity Maine to rapidly gain significant market share
in the Maine residential and small-business electricity supply
market. These marketing practices were so effective that, in 2012,
Electricity Maine became the fastest growing energy company in the
country. Electricity Maine's promise of always beating the
standard offer proved short lived, however. After enrolling nearly
190,000 customers through mid-2012, Electricity Maine began to
significantly increase its rates in early 2013. When customers'
introductory-rates expired, they were automatically enrolled at
substantially higher rates with little, or no, notice. These
prices greatly exceeded, and later doubled, the standard-offer
rate.

Electricity Maine, an electricity supply company, sells
electricity directly to homes and businesses served by CMP and
Emera Maine utilities. The company was incorporated in 2010 and is
based in Auburn, Maine. Electricity Maine, LLC operates as a
subsidiary of Provider Power, LLC.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas F. Hallett, Esq.
          Timothy E. Zerillo, Esq.
          David A. Weyrens, Esq.
          Benjamin N. Donahue, Esq.
          HALLETT, ZERILLO & WHIPPLE P.A.
          75 Market Street
          P.O. Box 7508
          Portland, ME 04112-7508
          Telephone: (207) 775 4255
          E-mail: bdonahue@hzwlaw.com


EHT PHARMACY: Class Certification Hearing Set for Jan 20
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Centerville Clinics, Inc., the Plaintiff,
v. EHT Pharmacy, LLC, d/b/a Curexa, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-10536 (N.D, Ill.), the Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman
entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on November 21,
2016, the plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered
and continued until the next status date. The Plaintiff's motion
to seal is granted. No appearance necessary on November 22, 2016.
Status hearing is set for January 20, 2017 at 9:00 AM. The parties
are directed to meet and discuss the status of the case. The
parties are to file a joint status report by January 17, 2017 in
the format described on the court's website at
www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. The parties are directed to discuss
settlement, and whether they consent to proceed before the
Magistrate Judge.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9ocduhUf


EMERSON ELECTRIC: Class Cert. Sought in Marketing and Sales Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit re: Emerson Electric Co. Wet/Dry VAC Marketing and
Sales Litigation, Case No. 4:12-md-02382-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiffs Chad Venhaus, Justin Swires, Lauren Checki, Kevin
Brees, Chris Willis, and Fred Wilmer in this multidistrict
litigation consolidated for pretrial proceedings move the Court to
certify the action as a class action against Defendant Emerson
Electric Company, and enter an order defining the classes and
appointing class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=91ANi42p

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          R. Seth Crompton, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241 8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241 5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com
          scrompton@allfela.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Richard J. Arsenault, Esq.
          NEBLETT, BEARD & ARSENAULT
          2220 Bonaventure Court
          P.O. Box 1190
          Alexandria, LA 71309
          Telephone: (216)621 8484
          Facsimile: (216)771 1632
          E-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN
          & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215)592 1500
          Facsimile: (215)592 4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Patrick Dinan, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          27300 Riverview Center Blvd., Suite 103
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134


EUROSTAR INC: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Disability Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Parker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Eurostar, Inc. d/b/a WSS, Case No. BC641295 (Cal.
Super. Ct., November 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to remove architectural and communication barriers in
existing stores, denying equal access to disabled persons.

Eurostar, Inc. operates a retail chain of shoe stores
headquartered in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 534-2590
      Facsimile: (310)247-0160
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Offsets $6MM Expense With Deal in Vendor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the second
quarter 2016, it had a litigation settlement expense of $6 million
related to the settlement of a class action lawsuit during the
period, which was offset by a favorable settlement with a vendor
for which the Company was the plaintiff.


FLORIDA: Certification of Class Sought in "McKnight" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled AVERY MCKNIGHT v. STATE OF
FLORIDA, ET AL., Case No. 3:16-cv-00990-MMH-JBT (M.D. Fla.), moves
for himself, personally, and all others similarly situated, for
class certification for injunctive relief claims only to prevent
the continuance of the Defendant's alleged federal, constitutional
and statutory violations.

Avery McKnight alleges that because of the temporary nature of
confinement at Northeast Florida State Hospital, the issues are
capable of repetition, yet evading review.  The Plaintiff adds
that many institutionalized residents are reluctant or afraid to
take actions that might incur the displeasure of staff, who
control nearly every aspect of their daily life.

In the alternative, the Plaintiff moves the Court to sever the
Plaintiff's individualized claims from those that affect a large
number of individuals and certify the applicable claims as a class
action.  As another alternative, the Plaintiff asks that his
discharge from Northeast Florida State Hospital does not moot the
injunctive relief claims against the hospital.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HXFyz2Oi


FRONTON HOLDINGS: Class Certification Bid in "Rife" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joan A. Lenard entered an order in the lawsuit styled
RUDY RIFE, the Plaintiff, v. FRONTON HOLDINGS, LLC, D/B/A CASINO
MIAMI, and DAVE JONAS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21570-JAL
(S.D. Fla.), denying Plaintiff's motion for certification of
collective action and for permission to send court supervised
notice.

The following class is denied:

   "all persons who are currently, or who were, employed by
   Fronton Holdings, LLC d/b/a Casino Miami and/or Dave Jonas
   from May 3, 2013 to the present as a "manager", "supervisor",
   or other similarly titled position, either directly by
   Defendants or through any of their subsidiaries or affiliated
   companies".

The Court said, "Here, the opt-ins' Declarations are vague and
entirely unhelpful with respect to job requirements. In fact, the
opt-ins fail to describe any of their job requirements, so it is
impossible for the Court to determine whether they are similarly
situated to Plaintiff. (See Garcia Decl., D.E. 27-1; Rosales
Decl., D.E. 31-1; Fernandez Decl., D.E. 46-1.). The closest the
opt-ins' come to describing their job requirements is vaguely
stating that their job requirements do not include hiring, firing,
or deciding anyone else's rate of pay. (Garcia Decl. Par. 7(a),
(f); Rosales Decl. 7(a), (f); Fernandez Decl. 7(a), (f). This is
simply insufficient to meet the "modest factual showing" required
at this stage. See Grayson, 79 F.3d at 1097 ("The plaintiffs may
meet [their] burden, which is not heavy, by making detailed
allegations supported by affidavits which successfully engage
defendants' affidavits to the contrary".). Consequently, the Court
is constrained to conclude that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy
his burden of showing a 'reasonable basis' for his claim that
there are other similarly situated employees".

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


GBC TOWSON: Refuses to Pay Latina Workers, "Leiva" Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
IRIS PINEDA LEIVA, GLADIS BRENES CASAZOLA, CARLA PINTO, and GEIDI
OROMON RAMOS, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and *
Employees similarly situated v. GBC TOWSON EAST, LLC d/b/a GINO'S
BURGERS AND CHICKEN, ABERDEEN GBC, LLC, WOODBINE VENTURES -
ABERDEEN, LLC, A & M HOSPITALITY, LLC, SCOTT AUTRY, JARED MILLER
and BRIDGIT KINCAID, Case No. 1:16-cv-03765-JFM (D. Md., Nov. 21,
2016), stems from the Defendants' alleged willful and racially-
motivated refusal to pay the Plaintiffs their wages, including
minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Plaintiffs are four Latina former employees of the Defendants,
who worked as dishwashers, cleaners, food preparation workers, and
cooks at the Towson and Aberdeen locations of the Defendants'
restaurants, Gino's Burgers and Chicken.

GBC Towson East, LLC (d/b/a Gino's Burgers and Chicken) is a
Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in
Towson, Maryland.  Aberdeen GBC, LLC (d/b/a Gino's Burgers and
Chicken) is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of
business in Aberdeen, Maryland.  Woodbine Ventures - Aberdeen LLC
(d/b/a Gino's Burgers and Chicken) is a Maryland corporation with
its principal place of business in Aberdeen.  A & M Hospitality,
LLC (d/b/a Gino's Burgers and Chicken) is a Maryland corporation
with its principal place of business in Aberdeen.

The Corporate Defendants owned and operated "fast casual"
restaurants at two locations in Maryland, one in Towson ("Gino's
Towson") and one in Aberdeen ("Gino's Aberdeen") as "joint
employers" and part of a single enterprise trading as Gino's
Burgers and Chicken.  Scott Autry is an owner, agent or principal
of Gino's.  Jared Miller is the current sole owner of Gino's
Towson.  Bridgit Kincaid, during the time period relevant to this
action, has been a manager/supervisor at both Restaurants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis J. Ebert, Esq.
          Jamar R. Brown, Esq.
          ROSENBERG MARTIN GREENBERG LLP
          25 S. Charles St., Suite 2115
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 649-4995
          Facsimile: (410) 727-6600
          E-mail: lebert@rosenbergmartin.com
                  jbrown@rosenbergmartin.com

               - and -

          Monisha Cherayil, Esq.
          THE PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
          One North Charles Street, Suite 200
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 625-9409
          Facsimile: (410) 625-9423
          E-mail: cherayilm@publicjustice.org


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued by Puente Over Wrong Fuel Economy Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN PUENTE and JOSHUA JENNINGS On Behalf of Themselves and All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-08688-RMB-AMD (D.N.J., November 21, 2016), is brought on
behalf of a class composed of all current and former owners or
lessees of 2014 to 2016 Chevrolet Sonics that were manufactured,
marketed and sold or leased with incorrect EPA-fuel economy
estimates.

For years (potentially as far back as 2011 when GM began
manufacturing the Sonic), the Defendant advertised that the Chevy
Sonic was EPA-rated up to 40 miles per gallon on the highway,
according to the complaint.  These ratings, however, were false,
the Plaintiffs contend.  They assert that as detailed in a
memorandum circulated by GM to its authorized dealerships, GM
admitted the EPA Fuel Economy for the 2014-2016 Chevy Sonics, with
manual transmission, were overestimated by at least 1 MPG.

GM is a limited liability company organized under Delaware law
with its principal office located in Detroit, Michigan.  GM
designs, tests, manufactures, distributes, warrants, sells, and
leases various vehicles under several prominent brand names,
including, but not limited to, Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, GM, and
Pontiac in this district and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
          Randee Matloff, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 618-0400
          E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com
                  rmatloff@nagelrice.com

               - and -

          Joseph LoPiccolo, Esq.
          John N. Poulos, Esq.
          POULOS LOPICCOLO PC
          1305 South Roller Road
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 757-0165
          E-mail: lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com
                  poulos@pllawfirm.com


GILBERT MEGA: Accused by "Medina" Suit of Failing to Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Medina, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated v. Gilbert Mega Furniture, LLC, Ahwatukee Mega Furniture,
LLC, Mega Furniture & Accessories, LLC, Mega Furniture Avondale,
LLC, Mega Furniture Bell, LLC, Mega Furniture Scottsdale, LLC,
Phoenix Mega Furniture, LLC, Karim Kanjiyani and Jane Doe
Kanjiyani, husband and wife, Saleem Kanjiyani and Jane Doe
Kanjiyani, husband and wife, Yasmin Daredia and John Doe Daredia,
husband and wife, and Yasmin Darcelia and John Doe Darcelia,
husband and wife, Case No. 2:16-cv-04033-SPL (D. Ariz., November
21, 2016), accuses the Defendants of unlawfully failing to pay
overtime and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and failing to pay wages due in violation of the
Arizona Wage Statute.

The Mega Furniture Defendants are Arizona limited liability
companies, authorized to do business in Arizona.  The Individual
Defendants are members of Mega Furniture.  The Defendants are in
the business of selling furniture at 10 locations throughout
Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN
          & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: tfrankel@bffb.com

               - and -

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          LAW OFFICES OF BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMA
            & BALINT, P.C.
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-7748
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Tripp Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER TRIPP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HALLIBURTON COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03434 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 20, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, Halliburton employs oilfield personnel
to carry out its work. In this regard, Plaintiff and the other
workers like him were typically scheduled for 12 hour shifts, 7
days a week, for weeks at a time. But these workers never received
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA,
Defendant paid these workers a daily rate with no overtime pay and
improperly classified them as independent contractors.

Halliburton is an oil and natural gas company operating worldwide
and throughout the United States, including in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND
          BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet
          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.
          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


HOSTA HOLDINGS: Class Certification Sought in "Bellanich" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEPHEN BELLANICH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOSTA
HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv 06435 (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
for an order certifying the case as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but asks the Court to enter
and continue the motion until after the completion of discovery on
class-wide issues, at which time Plaintiff will submit a more
detailed memorandum of points and authorities in support of class
certification.

The Plaintiff defined the following classes:

Autodialed No Consent Class:

   "all persons in the United States who (1) Defendant
   (or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant) sent text
   messages, (2) to the person's cellular telephone number, and
   (3) for whom Defendant claims it obtained prior express
   consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it supposedly
   obtained prior express consent to send automated text messages
   to the Plaintiff; and

Autodialed Stop Call Class:

   "all persons in the United States who (1) from November 3,
   2016 to the present (2) Defendant (or a third person acting on
   behalf of Defendant) sent text messages, (2) on the person's
   cellular telephone number, and (3) for the purpose of
   promoting a business or service, (4) after the person informed
   Defendant that s/he no longer wished to receive text messages
   from Defendant".

According to the complaint, Defendant is a business loan
origination company offering working capital to small businesses
by providing a cash advance against their credit card receivables.
The Defendant uses the trade name "GoAccredited". Defendant
purchases lists of consumers and knowingly sends unsolicited text
messages to consumers' cellular telephones in an attempt to
solicit business. Defendant took no steps to acquire the oral or
written prior express consent of Plaintiff or the other members of
the classes who received the unsolicited text messages, and it
sent the messages while aware that prior express consent had not
been obtained. Using an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS),
Defendant sent the same text messages en masse to thousands of
cellular telephone numbers throughout the United States.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M5OqWfak

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan L. Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          STEFAN L. COLEMAN, P.A.
          5 Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: 877 333 9427
          Facsimile: 888 498 8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213 0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927 0809


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Wylie" Class Suit in Cent. Dist. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Hyundai Motor
America.

The case is captioned Shawna Wylie f/k/a Shawna Brown,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 2:16-cv-08742 (C.D.
Cal., November 22, 2016).

Hyundai Motor America operates an automobile company that designs,
engineers, produces, markets and distributes luxury vehicles.

Shawna Wylie is a pro se plaintiff.

INGRAM & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Redding" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Latasha Redding, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ingram & Associates LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-
06516 (E.D.N.Y., November 22, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Ingram & Associates LLC operates a law firm in New York.

Latasha Redding is a pro se plaintiff.


INSIEME INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Melgar" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAN MELGAR; SELENE PENA v. INSIEME, INC. dba CHEZ SHEA; QUMARS
ATIN; FEY ATIN, Case No. 16CIV02374 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo
Cty., November 15, 2016), accuses the Defendants of failing to pay
the Plaintiffs their overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated individuals.

Insieme, Inc., doing business as Chez Shea, is a California
corporation, with its principal place of business in San Mateo
County, California.  The Individual Defendants are residents in
San Mateo County, California, who are the principal and
controlling stockholders in Chez Shea.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert David Baker, Esq.
          ROBERT DAVID BAKER, INC.
          80 South White Road
          San Jose, CA 95127
          Telephone: (408) 251-3400
          Facsimile: (408) 251-3401
          E-mail: rbaker@rdblaw.net


INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Sued Over Sale of Company to Genesys
--------------------------------------------------------------
KARL TRAHAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE GROUP, INC.,
GENESYS TELECOMMUNICATIONS LABORATORIES, INC., GIANT MERGER SUB
INC., GREENEDEN LUX 3 S.AR.L., GREENEDEN U.S. HOLDINGS I, LLC,
GREENEDEN U.S. HOLDINGS II, LLC, DONALD E. BROWN, MITCHELL E.
DANIELS, EDWARD L. HAMBURG, MICHAEL C. HEIM, MARK E. HILL and
RICHARD A. RECK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03161-SEB-TAB
(S.D. Ind., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks an award of damages sufficient
to redress shareholders for the damage caused by Defendants'
breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting said breaches and
other violations of federal law arising out of Defendants' efforts
to complete the sale of the Company to Genesys, pursuant to an
unfair process and for an unfair price.

On August 31, 2016, the Defendants announced that they had entered
into a definitive merger agreement (Merger Agreement), which had
been approved by the Board. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Genesys will acquire all of the outstanding shares of
Interactive common stock for the inadequate price of $60.50 per
share. The Acquisition is the product of a fundamentally unfair
process that is designed to ensure the sale of Interactive to
Genesys on terms preferential to Genesys and Interactive's Board
members and management, but detrimental to plaintiff and the other
Interactive shareholders. The process leading to the Acquisition
was tainted by conflicts, tilted toward Genesys and driven by
Interactive's Board and executive management, who collectively own
more than 4.8 million shares of Interactive stock. For the Board
and Company management, the Acquisition provides a liquidity event
for their large illiquid Interactive holdings. But that is not
all. In addition to "cashing in" their illiquid holdings, the
Company's management will be staying on board after the
transaction. As indicated in the press release announcing the
Acquisition, Interactive's senior management team will likely
remain with the new organization after the Acquisition is
complete. As a result of the unfair process, the Acquisition price
of $60.50 per share is also unfair, as the Board willfully or
recklessly failed to obtain adequate compensation for
Interactive's shareholders. The Acquisition price of $60.50 per
share represents a miniscule 7% premium to the closing price of
Interactive common stock on the day before the deal was announced.
According to Yahoo! Finance, at least one analyst has set a price
target for Interactive stock at $67.00 per share. In the last
three years, Interactive common stock traded as high as $81.59 per
share on March 4, 2014.

Interactive offers cloud and on-premise solutions for customer
engagement, communications and collaboration, with offices in
Indianapolis, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen A. Farinas, Esq.
          Linda George, Esq.
          GEORGE & FARINAS, LLP
          151 N. Delaware Street, Suite 1700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: 317 637 6071
          E-mail: kf@lgkflaw.com

               - and -

          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          DAVID T. WISSBROECKER
          EDWARD M. GERGOSIAN
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231 7423

               - and -

          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          Frank J. Johnson
          W. Scott Holleman
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230 0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255 1856


IXIA: Settlement in "Santore" Suit Became Final on August 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Ixia said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016, that the settlement in the lawsuit entitled
Felix Santore v. Ixia, et al., became final on August 31, 2016.

On November 14, 2013, a purported securities class action
complaint captioned Felix Santore v. Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul
Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg was filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period
from April 10, 2010 through October 14, 2013. The initial
complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's recognition of revenues related to its warranty and
software maintenance contracts and the academic credentials and
employment history of the Company's former President and Chief
Executive Officer, Victor Alston. The complaint also alleged that
the defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to
make certain disclosures, regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, including regarding the financial
statements and internal financial controls that were the subject
of the Company's April 2013 restatement of certain of its prior
period financial statements. The complaint further alleged that
the Company lacked adequate internal financial controls and issued
materially false and misleading financial statements for the
fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011, and the fiscal
quarters ended March 31, 2011; June 30, 2011; September 30, 2011;
March 31, 2012; June 30, 2012; and September 30, 2012. The
complaint, which purported to assert claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, sought, on behalf of the purported class,
an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

On March 24, 2014, following a proceeding to select a lead
plaintiff in the matter, the court issued an order appointing
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System (the "Oklahoma Group") as lead
plaintiffs.

On June 11, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a first amended
complaint, which asserted claims against the same defendants under
the same legal theories set forth in the initial complaint. The
first amended complaint also contained allegations that certain of
the individual defendants increased their trading in the Company's
stock during February, March, April, and May of 2011 and during
February and March of 2013, and that the defendants sought to
inflate the Company's reported deferred revenues during the period
of February 4, 2011 through April 3, 2013.

On July 18, 2014, all named defendants moved to dismiss the first
amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Law Reform Act
of 1995 ("PSLRA"). After briefing and a hearing on October 6,
2014, the court issued an order dismissing the first amended
complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court gave the
Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended complaint.

On November 5, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a second amended
complaint. On January 6, 2015, the named defendants moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint. After briefing and a hearing
on April 13, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing the second
amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court
gave the Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended
complaint.

On April 24, 2015, the court issued an order staying the class
action until July 31, 2015, pending the outcome of a voluntary,
non-binding mediation scheduled for July 23, 2015 to explore a
possible settlement of both the purported securities class action
and the shareholder derivative action discussed below. On July 23,
2015, the parties conducted the scheduled mediation with respect
to the purported class action but did not reach an agreement to
resolve and settle the litigation. However, settlement discussions
continued after the mediation session, and on August 14, 2015, the
parties agreed in principle to settle the purported securities
class action litigation.

On November 17, 2015, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, dated November 11, 2015 relating to the
proposed settlement of the class action (the "Class Action
Settlement Agreement"). This Class Action Settlement Agreement
would resolve all of the claims asserted against the defendants in
the class action and was entered into subject to the Court's
preliminary and final approval. The Class Action Settlement
Agreement provided, among other terms, for a settlement payment of
$3.5 million. The Class Action Settlement Agreement does not
include any admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of
the Company or the individual defendants, and upon final approval
of the settlement by the Court, provides for a dismissal of, and a
release of all claims asserted against the defendants in, the
class action. In February 2016, the Court granted preliminary
approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement and scheduled a
hearing for July 29, 2016 to consider final approval of the Class
Action Settlement Agreement. In March 2016, the Company's insurer
funded the payment of $3.5 million into an escrow account
established pursuant to the Class Action Settlement Agreement.

Following a hearing on July 29, 2016, the Court on August 1, 2016
entered an order granting final approval of the Class Action
Settlement Agreement. The final order also approved the award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs' counsel in the amount
of $1.1 million, which was paid from the settlement payment of
$3.5 million held in the escrow account established pursuant to
the Class Action Settlement Agreement. The deadline to appeal the
Court's order was August 31, 2016.

As the deadline to appeal has expired and there was no appeal, the
settlement became final on August 31, 2016.

Ixia was incorporated on May 27, 1997, as a California
corporation. The Company provides application performance and
security resilience solutions so that organizations can validate,
secure, and optimize their physical and virtual networks.
Enterprises, service providers, network equipment manufacturers,
and governments worldwide rely on Ixia's solutions to deploy new
technologies and achieve efficient, secure ongoing operation of
their networks. Ixia's product solutions consist of its high
performance hardware platforms, software applications, and
services, including warranty and maintenance offerings and
professional services.


JOYCE STEEL: Keith et al. Seek to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
AARON KEITH; JOEL FARRELL; RYAN COULTER; CHRIS GRIFFIN;
SHALON BOWEN; Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. JOYCE STEEL ERECTION, LTD.; JOYCE CRANE,
INC.; JOE BOB JOYCE, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-01302 (E.D.
Tex., November 16, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation
and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The case alleges that Plaintiffs and others similarly situated
were paid "straight time" instead of overtime for tasks that are
clearly compensable, such as driving to and from job sites, and
yard time. Defendants also routinely allegedly deducted lunch
breaks from their workers, even when such breaks were not taken.

Joyce Crane, Inc. and Joyce Steel Erection, Ltd. provide heavy
duty lifting and rigging services for construction projects.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Josh Borsellino, Esq.
     BORSELLINO, P.C.
     1020 Macon St., Suite 15
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Phone: (817) 908-9861
     Fax: (817) 394-2412
     Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com


LADENBURG THALMANN: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Fuse Suits v. Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. awaits ruling on
Defendants' motion to consolidate two purported class actions
arising from Miller Energy Resources, Inc.'s securities offerings,
according to Ladenburg's November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016.

In November 2015, two purported class action complaints were filed
in state court in Tennessee against officers and directors of
Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller"), as well as Miller's
auditors and nine firms that underwrote six securities offerings
in 2013 and 2014, and raised approximately $151,000. Ladenburg was
one of the underwriters of two of the offerings. The complaints
allege, among other things, that the offering materials were
misleading based on the purportedly overstated valuation of
certain assets, and that the underwriters are liable for
violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other
relief.

In December 2015 the defendants removed the complaints to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee; in September
2016, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand.
Defendants' motion to consolidate the actions is currently
pending. Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these
claims.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Bids to Junk Plains All American Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that
motions to dismiss are currently pending in the lawsuit against
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., et al.

In January 2016, an amended complaint for a purported class action
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., related entities
and their officers and directors. The amended complaint added as
defendants Ladenburg and other underwriters of securities
offerings in 2013 and 2014 that in the aggregate raised
approximately $2,900,000. Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of
the October 2013 initial public offering. The complaints allege,
among other things, that the offering materials were misleading
based on representations concerning the maintenance and integrity
of the issuer's pipelines, and that the underwriters are liable
for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other
relief. Motions to dismiss are currently pending. Ladenburg
intends to vigorously defend against these claims.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Defends Consolidated Suit vs. American Realty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it
will vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the
consolidated lawsuit involving American Realty Capital Partners,
Inc.

In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action
suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against American Realty Capital Partners,
Inc. ("ARCP"), certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's
auditing firm, and the underwriters of ARCP's May 2014 $1,656,000
common stock offering ("May 2014 Offering") and three prior note
offerings. The complaints have been consolidated. Ladenburg was
named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of the May 2014
Offering and as one of eight underwriters of ARCP's July 2013
offering of $300,000 in convertible notes. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the offering materials were misleading
based on financial reporting of expenses, improperly-calculated
AFFO (adjusted funds from operations), and false and misleading
Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, including statements as to ARCP's
internal controls, and that the underwriters are liable for
violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other
relief.

In June 2016, the court denied the underwriters' motions to
dismiss the complaint.  Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend
against these claims.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Settlement Reached in Securities America Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a
settlement was reached with the bankruptcy trustee resolving the
claims against one of its principal operating subsidiaries --
Securities America, Inc.

In September 2015, Securities America was named as a defendant in
lawsuits brought by the bankruptcy trustee of a broker-dealer
(U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota) and a
putative class action by the shareholders of that broker-dealer
(U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). The lawsuits
allege that certain of the debtor broker-dealer's assets were
transferred to Securities America in June 2015 for inadequate
consideration.

In October 2016, a settlement was reached with the bankruptcy
trustee resolving those claims; the amount paid in connection with
the settlement was not material. The remaining complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, and other relief.
Securities America intends to vigorously defend against these
claims.


LASERTONE CORP: Faces "Shakur" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheik Shakur, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lasertone Corp., Supplytek International LLC, Isaac
Deutsch, and Michael Schlesinger, Case No. 1:16-cv-06439
(E.D.N.Y., November 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an office supply store located at 10203
Avenue D, Brooklyn, New York 11236.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Cafaro, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
      108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
      New York, NY 10018
      Telephone: (212) 583-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 583-7401
      E-mail: bcafaro@cafaroesq.com


LEE COUNTY, FL: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Lopez"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Mabel Lopez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mike Scott, in
his official capacity as Sheriff of Lee County, Florida, Case No.
2:15-cv-00303-PAM-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Paul A. Magnuson
entered an order denying a class of:

   "individuals, both drivers and passengers, who were stopped
   and detained by Sheriff's deputies using such devices from May
   12, 2011 to May 12, 2015".

The Court said, "Lopez has sufficiently established that she "will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a)(4). But the adequacy of her representation cannot
overcome her failure to establish the other three Rule 23(a)
factors. The record simply does not support her contentions
regarding numerosity, commonality, or typicality. Certification of
a class is therefore inappropriate".

In August 2012, a Deputy Sheriff from the Lee County Sheriff's
Office stopped Plaintiff Mabel1 Lopez's car and issued her a
citation for speeding. The Deputy used a Python II model radar gun
to detect Lopez's speed. Under Florida law, law enforcement may
use only approved speed-detection devices to determine the speed
of vehicles on Florida roads. At the time of Lopez's traffic stop,
the Python II had not been approved for use in Florida. The Lee
County Sheriff's Office had a total of 85 Python II devices in use
until January 2015.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=68AwdpZA


LEGACY HOME: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
SALMA D. HERNANDEZ, ET AL, the Plaintiffs, v. LEGACY HOME HEALTH
AGENCY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01164 (W.D. Tex.,
Nov. 18, 2016), seeks all damages available under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), including back wages, liquidated damages,
legal fees, costs and post-judgment interest.

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and as a FLSA
collective action on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals who worked for Defendant as home health service
providers, and like Plaintiff, were not paid time and one-half
their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40
in each seven-day workweek in the time period of three years
preceding the date this lawsuit was filed and forward.

Legacy Home provides patient care and personal & professional
growth opportunities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo A. Garcia-Tagle
          LAW OFFICE OF
          RICARDO A. GARCIA-TAGLE
          315 S. St. Mary's Street
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 444 1599
          Facsimile: (210) 855 6098
          E-mail: Ricardo@ragarcialaw.com


MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Expects No Add'l Expenses in Cadillac Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., expects to incur no expenses
in 2016 or thereafter in connection with the settled purported
class action lawsuit initiated by Cadillac Partners, according to
the Company's November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

On September 18, 2015, an Order and Final Judgment was entered by
the Superior Court of the State of California, approving a
settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced on May 30, 2014, in
Santa Clara County Superior Court, State of California, on behalf
of Cadillac Partners and others similarly situated, naming as
defendants, MabVax Therapeutics, the Company and the Company's
directors, Hudson Bay Capital Management LP, Bio IP Ventures LLC,
Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd., and Hudson Bay IP Opportunities
Master Fund LP, together the "Parties," alleging the defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted a breach
of fiduciary duties, in connection with the Company's Merger with
MabVax Therapeutics. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the Merger and
obtain damages as well as attorneys' and expert fees and costs.

The Company said it expects to incur no expenses in 2016 or
thereafter in connection with this lawsuit or settlement.

MabVax is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
discovering and developing innovative monoclonal antibody-based
therapeutics and vaccines for the diagnosis and treatment of
cancer.


MEMORIAL HEALTH: Class Certification Sought in "Myers" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LYNNETT MYERS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM MARIETTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:15-cv-02956-ALM-TPK (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move
the Court for certification and approval of an opt-out notice of a
class consisting of:

   "all of Defendants' current and former Nurses and Patient Care
   Technicians who were hourly employees and subject to
   Defendants' automatic meal deduction policy during the three
   years before this Complaint was filed up to the present".

The Plaintiffs filed this action on October 29, 2015, alleging
federal and state wage and hour claims against Defendants. On
January 1, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of a collective class. On August 17, 2016, the Court
conditionally certified the following Collective Class:

   "all of Defendants' current and former hourly employees who
   were responsible for direct patient care and were subject to
   Defendants' automatic meal deduction policy at any time during
   the three years prior to the granting of this motion to the
   present".

Since certifying the Collective Class the parties have engaged in
additional discovery. With this additional information, the
Plaintiffs have sufficient evidence to meet the more rigorous
standards of Rule 23 class certification.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=28UbVEBf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven C. Babin, Jr., Esq.
          Lance Chapin, Esq.
          CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          580 South High Street, Suite 330
          Columbus, Ohio 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221 9100
          Facsimile: (614) 221 9272
          E-mail: sbabin@chapinlegal.com


MODEL N INC: Excludes Expenses in Securities Suits in 4Q Results
----------------------------------------------------------------
Model N, Inc., excludes from its fourth quarter results the
effects of legal expense for securities class action lawsuits
filed in September 2014 and January 2015, according to the
Company's November 7, 2016, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

While a large component of its expenses incurred in certain
periods, the Company believes investors may want to exclude the
effects of certain items in order to compare the Company's
financial performance with that of other companies and between
time periods.  These expenses include legal expense for the
securities class action lawsuits filed in September 2014 and
January 2015.

The Company believes that the exclusion of these legal expenses
provides for a better comparison of its operation results to prior
periods and to its peer companies.


MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: Class Cert. Bid Taken Under Submission
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Lawrence Weinstein v. Mortgage Contracting
Services, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-02521-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Jesus G. Bernal entered an order taking under submission the
following:

   1. Hearing on Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and

   2. Plaintiff's motions for class certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Xssox0p2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis Frank Moss, Esq.
          15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste 207
          DENNIS MOSS LAW
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 773 0323
          Facsimile: (310) 861 0389
          E-mail: dennis@dennismosslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric M. Gruzen, Esq.
          Kerri H. Skaue, Esq.
          PECKAR & ABRAMSON, PC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 550
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 228 1075
          Facsimile: (310) 228 1076
          E-mail: egruzen@pecklaw.com


MULTI-SERVICIOS: Hernandez Sues Over Check-Cashing Services
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. MULTI-SERVICIOS LATINO,
INC., RIGOBERTO AGUILAR, individually, EUGENIO AGUILAR,
individually, SAUL HERNANDEZ, individually, RON'S TEMPORARY HELP
SERVICES, INC. and RON MICHELON, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-10748 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to
recover wages stolen from low-wage residents of the Little Village
community of Chicago, Illinois through a scheme involving currency
exchanges, and Chicago area staffing agencies.

According to the complaint, to avoid the prohibition under
Illinois law against charging temporary laborers for
transportation, many area staffing agencies, including Ron's
Staffing, engage raiteros such as Rigo, Eugenio and Saul to
recruit temporary laborers from Little Village in Chicago, a
community heavily populated with recent immigrants who are easily
exploited, and to transport those laborers to a staffing agency's
client companies where the staffing agency has a contract or
agreement to provide temporary laborers for a fee. Rather than
compensate the raiteros directly, staffing agencies that engage in
this unlawful scheme provide the raiteros with the weekly
paychecks of the temporary laborers, including Plaintiff, who then
take the laborers' paychecks to a currency exchange, in this case
Multi-Servicios CE, with which they have an arrangement. The
raitero provides the currency exchange with the number of rides
provided to each laborer for that week. On pay day, the raiteros
then drop the laborers off at the currency exchange where the
laborer provides the cashier with their name and the name of the
raitero. Once the currency exchange cashier locates that laborer's
check, the laborer is required to endorse the check and the
currency exchange provides the laborer with the cash equivalent of
the amount of the check minus the currency exchange's check
cashing fee and minus the equivalent of eight dollars ($8.00) per
day for each day the laborer was given a ride by the raitero that
week. For example, if the raitero indicated to the currency
exchange that a laborer was transported four times that week, the
currency exchange withheld thirty-two dollars ($32). This
additional deduction constituted an unlawful check-cashing fee
charged to the laborer by the currency exchange in violation of
the Illinois Currency Exchange Act (ICEA), In exchange for
bringing the check-cashing business of Plaintiff and other
temporary laborers to the Multi-Servicios CE, the agents of the
Multi-Servicios CE agreed to withhold the ride charges on behalf
of the staffing agencies' agents, raiteros Rigo, Eugenio and Saul
(hereafter Defendant Raiteros), and hold them in an account for
each respective Defendant Raitero.

Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated laborers, that the scheme engaged in between the area
staffing agencies, including Ron's Staffing, their agents the
Defendant Raiteros, and the currency exchange, Multi-Servicios CE
violated multiple state and federal laws designed to protect
workers from theft of their wages and designed to protect
consumers from forced and excessive charges for check-cashing
services.

Raiteros is a term coined in a Chicago largely immigrant community
to refer to van drivers who recruit and transport workers for area
temporary staffing firms.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          Alvar Ayala, Esq.
          WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, PC
          53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 795 9121


NATIONAL RETAIL: Rainboth-Venditti Seek Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MICHELLE RAINBOTH-VENDITTI On behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
NATIONAL RETAIL SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-
00137-MAD-ATB (N.D.N.Y), the Plaintiff move the Court for an
order:

   1) finding that Plaintiffs have met their burden with regards
      to their Fair Labor Standards Act claims and conditionally
      certifying Plaintiffs' claims as a collective action;

   2) authorizing a notice to be mailed to all members of each
      subclass consisting of:

      "Merchandisers, and other persons with similar job titles,
      duties, and compensation structures, employed by National
      Retail Solutions (Defendant) within three years from the
      date of certification to the present, who were not paid all
      straight time and overtime compensation due and owing";

   3) requiring Defendant to provide to Plaintiffs the following,
      within 10 days of the Court's Order: a list, in electronic
      and importable format, of the first and last names, last-
      known addresses, telephone numbers, dates of employment,
      location of employment, last four digits of the
      individual's social security number, and date of birth of
      all members of the putative class;

   4) requiring Defendant to post the Notice of this lawsuit in
      conspicuous locations where it employs its Merchandisers,
      and others with similar job titles duties, and compensation
      structures;

   5) tolling the statute of limitations from the date of the
      filing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class
      Certification until the close of the opt-in period;

   6) designating Michelle Rainboth-Venditti and Randi Dayberry
      as class representatives; and

   7) approving Plaintiff's counsel to act as class counsel in
      this matter.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1yCcp5Dt


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
          OSMAN & SMAY LLP
          8500 W. 110th St., Suite 330
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: 1-913-667-9243
          Facsimile: 1-866-470-9243
          E-maikl: mosman@workerwagerights.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Redenburg, Esq.
          MICHAEL J. REDENBURG, PC
          11 Park Place, Suite 817
          New York, NY 10007
          E-mail: mredenburg@mjrlaw-ny.com
          Telephone: 1-212-240-9465
          Facsimile: 1-917-591-1667


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Denied Class Certification in "Davis"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WILL DAVIS, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-02920-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Richard Seeborg entered an order denying the
following classes and subclass:

FCRA Class:

   "all persons in the United States, who entered into a TPP
   pursuant to a non-HAMP mortgage modification with Nationstar,
   who were current on their mortgage payments, as demonstrated
   by Nationstar's records, prior to the time they initiated
   efforts to enter into a mortgage modification with Nationstar,
   whose consumer credit report from any of the major credit
   reporting agencies(Transunion, Equifax, Experian and Innovis)
   reflected an inaccurate consumer credit report inquiry, from
   two years prior to the filing of the complaint, to present";

FCRA Dispute Subclass:

   "all FCRA Class members who thereafter disputed the inquiry to
   one or more of the major credit reporting agencies";

CCRA Class:

   "all persons in California, who entered into a TPP pursuant to
   a nonHAMP mortgage modification with Nationstar, who were
   current on their mortgage payments, as demonstrated by
   Nationstar's records, prior to the time they initiated efforts
   to enter into a mortgage modification with Nationstar, and
   whose consumer credit report from any of the major credit
   reporting agencies (Transunion, Equifax, Experian and Innovis)
   reflected an inaccurate consumer credit report inquiry, from
   two years prior to the filing of the complaint, to present".

The Court said, "Davis insists this action -- where a relatively
large number of consumers have suffered alleged injuries that may
be too small to pursue individually -- is exactly the type of case
for which class treatment is both appropriate and crucial. The
fatal flaw in Davis's position, however, is that the FCRA -- which
once permitted no private right of action -- only provides for a
private right of action in limited circumstances, and those
circumstances include elements not suited for class- wide
treatment. Davis's claim under the CCRA at first blush might seem
to present an easier road to recovery because it does provide a
private right of action for providing inaccurate information to a
consumer reporting agency. The CCRA, however, requires a showing
of actual damages. While a need for individualized damages
inquiries is not an automatic bar to class certification, it
raises a serious predominance issue here. See Ramirez, supra, 301
F.R.D. 408, 425 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (declining to certify CCRA
damages class). More fundamentally, however, in the absence of a
viable basis to pursue a class action under federal law, this not
an appropriate forum to pursue a class action under California law
involving solely a California class".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mwbaZd1o


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Fekete" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moishe Fekete, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nationwide Credit Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-06514
(E.D.N.Y., November 22, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Nationwide Credit Inc. operates a debt collection firm
headquartered in Temple, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW CHINA: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jian Chen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
New China Royal Express Inc. d/b/a China Royal, Yi Hua Zheng, and
Yu Lin Zheng, Case No. 2:16-cv-08702-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., November 22,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Chinese restaurant in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keli Liu, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: kliu@hanglaw.com


O.B. PARRIS: Sued Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------
BRIAN C. SCHARTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of THE FEMALE HEALTH COMPANY,
the Plaintiffs, v. O.B. PARRISH, WILLIAM R. CARGIULO, DONNA FELCH,
DAVID R. BETHUNE, Honorable ANDREW S. LOVE, MARY MARGARET FRANK,
SHARON MECKLES, ELGAR PEERSCHKE, MITCHELL S. STEINER, HARRY FISCH,
GEORGES MAKHOUL, MARIO EISENBERGER, and LUCY LU, the Defendants,
and THE FEMALE HEALTH COMPANY, the Nominal Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-10736 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to recover damages
as a result of Defendants' breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment.

On November 4, 2016, Plaintiff Brian C. Schartz commenced this
putative class action by filing in state court his Verified
Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaint. The State Court
Action was brought by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of a
putative class of all others similarly situated (the Class), as
well as derivatively on behalf of The Female Health Company
(Female Health). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants purportedly
caused the merger of Female Health and Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (Aspen Park) without proper shareholder approval (the
Transaction), resulting in losses to Plaintiff and the Class. On
November 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary
Injunction asking to enjoin the Board of Directors (Board) of
Female Health from taking actions to complete the Transaction,
including hiring new employees, converting securities of Female
Health, issuing equity or debt securities of Female Health, and
transferring funds between Female Health and Aspen Park.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street
          Chicago, IL 60602

               - and -

          Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
          Michael C. Wagner, Esq.
          Matthew A. Goldstein, Esq.
          MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven Marc Malina, Esq.
          Daniel Hildebrand, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312 456 8400
          Facsimile: 312 456 8435


OAKS DIAGNOSTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Break
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dimas Martinez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Oaks Diagnostics, Inc. and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC641280 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
November 21, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
requiring employees to work in excess of five consecutive hours a
day without providing a 30 minute, continuous and uninterrupted,
duty-free meal period for every five hours of work, or without
compensation for meal periods that were not provided by the end of
the fifth hour of work or tenth hour of work.

The Oaks Diagnostics, Inc. is a California-based medical
facilities providing radiology and diagnostics services, including
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (CT), x-
rays, ultrasound, fluoroscopy, and neuro-diagnostic studies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
      RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
      22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200
      Torrance, CA 90505
      Telephone: (310) 961-9600
      Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
      E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit re: Ocwen Financial Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 9:14-cv-81057-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
William P. Dimtrilouleas entered an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired Ocwen common stock from May 2, 2013 through
      December 19, 2014, inclusive, and were damaged thereby;

   2. certifying Plaintiffs Sjunde AP-Fonden and Jay E. Thren as
      representatives for members of the Class; and

   3. certifying Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Class
      Counsel and Sallah, Astarita & Cox, LLC as Liason Class
      counsel; and

On or before November 24, 2016, the parties shall jointly file for
approval by the Court a proposed notice to Class members;
alternatively, if the parties cannot agree on a proposed notice,
Plaintiffs shall file a proposed notice on or before November 24,
2016, and Defendant shall file any objections within three days of
the filing of Plaintiffs' proposed notice.

Excluded from the Class are Defendants and members of Defendants'
immediate families, any person, firm, trust, corporation, officer,
director, or other individual or entity in which any Defendant has
or had a controlling interest, or which is related to or
affiliated with any Defendant, and the legal representatives,
agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of
any such excluded party; and excluded from the Class are
Defendant's officers, directors, employees, and those who
purchased the Product for the purpose of resale; also excluded
from the Class are any personal injury claims.

The Court said, "The Court finds that common issues do predominate
over individual issues. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that
common issues of law and fact that are susceptible to common proof
predominate over any issues that may be subject to individualized
proof. Furthermore, the Court finds that Defendants' arguments to
the contrary are unpersuasive. Defendants argue that there are
differences between AP7 and the Class due to AP7's position as a
short seller and due to the fact that AP7 sold all its Ocwen stock
by November 23, 2014. As already discussed above, the Court does
not find that AP7's position as a short seller disqualifies its
claim as to the FOM theory, nor does the Court find that it
creates a conflict between AP7's interests and the interests of
the Class. To the extent that AP7's interest in Ocwen stock ended
on November 23, 2014, adding named Plaintiff Mr. Thren resolves
any issue about AP7's sale of all Ocwen stock on November 23, 2014
because Mr. Thren retained his shares beyond that point. Thus, the
Court finds that the predominance factor under Rule 23(b)(3) is
satisfied".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1vxcRQrx


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: "Woo" Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
ON Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the purported
class action lawsuit captioned Woo v. Fairchild Semiconductor
International, Inc. et al., was voluntarily dismissed by the
Plaintiff.

On December 14, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
shareholder class action lawsuit filed in state court in Delaware
against the Company, Merger Sub, Fairchild and certain directors
of Fairchild with respect to the Fairchild Agreement entered into
between our Merger Sub and Fairchild in November 2015, by which
the Company commenced a tender offer to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of Fairchild. The lawsuit alleged breach of
duty by the individual defendants and aiding and abetting by the
Company and the Merger Sub and was docketed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware as Woo v. Fairchild
Semiconductor International, Inc. et al., Case # 11798VCL.

In March 2016, the plaintiff amended the complaint to allege that
Fairchild's failure to accept the proposal from a third party
constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and that certain
disclosures filed on Form 14D-9 were misleading or inaccurate. As
relief, the amended complaint sought, among other things, an
injunction against the tender offer and the merger that are part
of the Fairchild Transaction, an accounting for damages, and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 26, 2016, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
lawsuit.


PACKERS SANITATION: Faces "Kelly" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
HUEY KELLY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, VS. PACKERS SANITATION SERVICES, INC., LTD., Case No.
2:16-cv-01277 (E.D. Tex., November 16, 2016), alleges violations
of Plaintiff's statutory employment right to receive overtime pay
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff's job at Packers Sanitation Services was as a lead
worker on the sanitation shift at the Pilgrims Pride chicken
processing plant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William S. Hommel, Jr.
     HOMMEL LAW FIRM
     1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
     Tyler, TX 75703
     Phone: 903-596-7100
     Fax: 469-533-1618


PPG INDUSTRIES: Amos Class Cert. Bid Denied Pending Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Patricia L. Amos, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. PPG Industries, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:05-cv-
00070-MHW-TPK (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Michael H. Watson entered an
order:

   1. granting PPG's motion to reopen discovery;

   2. reminding parties to confer in good faith when scheduling
      disposition.

   3. denying without prejudice to renewal Plaintiffs' motion for
      class certification.

   4. denying without prejudice parties' motion for summary
      judgment and Plaintiffs' motion to supplement; and

   5. advising parties that any forthcoming motion of any kind
      must comply with S.D. Ohio Civ. R 7.2 and 7.3 as well as
      with the Undersigned's Standing Order, pp 1-2. In
      particular, motions and supporting memoranda must be filed
      as one submission.

The Court said, "Discovery is reopened but limited to the claims
of the New Plaintiffs. Such discovery must be completed no later
than February 8, 2017. If the parties are unable to resolve a
discovery dispute extra judicially, they are encouraged to contact
the assigned Magistrate Judge before filing a discovery- related
motion. Motions for class certification are due no later than
March 8, 2017 and will be briefed within rule. Updated dispositive
motions, if any, be filed no later than March 8, 2017 and be
briefed within rule. While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs'
request, the Court concludes for the reasons discussed supra that
it is necessary to extend the deadlines for filing motions for
class certification and for summary judgment, which will reflect,
inter alia, information obtained during the reopened discovery
period".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4i6DnNAV


PREMIER NUTRITION: Sued Over Joint Juice Products False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR SANDOVAL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PREMIER NUTRITION
CORPORATION f/k/a JOINT JUICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-
cv-06708 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks actual damages or the
sum of $100, whichever is greater, and awards up to three times of
actual damages for Defendant's violations of the Unfair Practices
Act.

The suit is a consumer protection class action brought by
Plaintiff arising out of Defendant's false advertising its "Joint
Juice" Products.

According to the complaint, the Defendant claims Joint Juice
provides significant health benefits for the joints of all
consumers who drink its Products. These claimed health benefits
are the only reason a consumer would purchase Joint Juice. The
Defendant's advertising claims, however, are false, misleading,
and reasonably likely to deceive the public. Through an extensive,
integrated, and widespread nationwide marketing campaign,
Defendant promises that Joint Juice will support and nourish
cartilage, lubricate joints, and improve joint comfort. Defendant
asserts that the ingredient glucosamine hydrochloride will provide
these significant health benefits. The same promise is made on all
of the subject Joint Juice Products and throughout the Joint Juice
marketing materials. For example, the Joint Juice six-bottle
packaging prominently states that the Product "helps keep
cartilage lubricated and flexible", and that consumers should
"drink daily for healthy, flexible joints".

The Defendant markets, sells, and distributes Joint Juice, a line
of joint health dietary supplements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          TODD D. CARPENTER, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA
          & CARPENTER, LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 347 3517
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          ADAM J. LEVITT, Esq.
          EDMUND S. ARONOWITZ, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214 0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214 0001
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com
                  earonowitz@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236 0000
          Facsimile: (312) 948 9212
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com



PRICELINE GROUP: Faces 30 Suits Over Travel Transaction Taxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Priceline Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it is currently
involve in 30 lawsuits over issues involving the payment of travel
transaction taxes.

The Company and certain third-party online travel companies
("OTCs") are currently involved in approximately thirty lawsuits,
including certified and putative class actions, brought by or
against U.S. states, cities and counties over issues involving the
payment of travel transaction taxes (e.g., hotel occupancy taxes,
excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.) related to the priceline.com
business. Generally, the complaints allege, among other things,
that the OTCs violated each jurisdiction's respective relevant
travel transaction tax ordinance with respect to the charge and
remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law.

The Company believes that the laws at issue generally do not apply
to the services it provides, namely the facilitation of travel
reservations, and, therefore, that it does not owe the taxes that
are claimed to be owed. However, the Company has been involved in
this type of litigation for many years, and state and local
jurisdictions where these issues have not been resolved could
assert that the Company is subject to travel transaction taxes and
could seek to collect such taxes, retroactively and/or
prospectively. From time to time, the Company has found it
expedient to settle claims pending in these matters without
conceding that the claims at issue are meritorious or that the
claimed taxes are in fact due to be paid.  The Company may also
settle current or future travel transaction tax claims.

On August 5, 2016, the tax appeal court of the state of Hawaii
ruled that online travel companies, including the Company, owe
General Excise Tax (GET) on the gross amounts collected from
consumers on rental car reservations.  The tax appeal court
rejected the online travel companies' arguments that GET applies
only to amounts retained by online travel companies and does not
include amounts paid to rental car company suppliers.  The online
travel companies argued that GET should not apply to gross amounts
charged to consumers for rental car reservations pursuant to the
2015 decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court in Travelocity.com,
L.P., et al. v. Director of Taxation that GET applies to amounts
retained by online travel companies for hotel reservations and not
for gross amounts charged to consumers.  The Company intends to
appeal the tax appeal court decision to the Hawaii appellate
courts.  The Company must pay the amount of the judgment, which
has not yet been entered and which we believe will be immaterial
to our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows,
in order to appeal the decision.

The Company said litigation is subject to uncertainty and there
could be adverse developments in these pending or future cases and
proceedings. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending
litigation may encourage the commencement of additional
litigation, audit proceedings or other regulatory inquiries and
also could result in substantial liabilities for past and/or
future bookings, including, among other things, interest,
penalties, punitive damages and/or attorneys' fees and costs. An
adverse outcome in one or more of these unresolved proceedings
could have an adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations or cash flows in any given operating period. However,
the Company believes that even if the Company were to suffer
adverse determinations in the near term in more of the pending
proceedings than currently anticipated, given results to date it
would not have a material impact on its liquidity or financial
condition.

As a result of the travel transaction tax litigation generally and
other attempts by U.S. jurisdictions to levy similar taxes, the
Company has established an accrual (including estimated interest
and penalties) for the potential resolution of issues related to
travel transaction taxes in the amount of approximately $27
million as of September 30, 2016 and Dec. 31, 2015. The Company's
legal expenses for these matters are expensed as incurred and are
not reflected in the amount accrued. The actual cost may be less
or greater, potentially significantly, than the liabilities
recorded. An estimate for a reasonably possible loss or range of
loss in excess of the amount accrued cannot be reasonably made.

Priceline Group provides consumers, travel service providers and
restaurants with leading travel and restaurant reservation and
related services.


PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Registration Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER BOOK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRONAI THERAPFUTICS INC.,
NICK GLOVER, SUKHI JAGPAL, DONALD PARFET, ALBERT CHA, NICOLE
ONNETTO, ROBERT PELZER, PETER THOMPSON, JAMES TOPPER, ALVIN
VITANGCOL, JEFFERIES LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FFNNER & SMITH
INCORPORATED, WEDBUSH SECURITIES INC, and SUNTRUST ROBINSON
HUMPHREY, INC, the Defendants, Case No. 16CIV02473 (S.D. Fla.,
Nov. 18, 2016), seeks remedies under the Securities Act of 1933
caused by Defendants' false and/or misleading registration
statement issued in connection with the Company's July 15, 2015,
initial public offering (IPO).

According to the Company's IPO prospectus, the company's lead
product candidate was PNT2258; a purportedly proprietary
formulation of the Company's single-stranded 24-base DNAi
oligonucleotide, known as PNT100. The Company claimed in the IPO
Prospectus that PNTl00 DNAi targets and interferes with BCL2, an
important and validated oncogene known to be dysregulated in many
types of cancer. ProNAi also stated in the IPO Prospectus that in
December 2014, the Company initiated "Wolverine", an open-label 60
patient Phase 2 trial evaluating PNT2258 for the treatment of
third-line relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
(DLBCL). The Company further stated that it believed the
preliminary evidence of efficacy combined with safety and
tolerability data related to PNT2258 suggested that PNT2258 had
the potential to "change treatment paradigms across
a wide of range of oncology indications".

The Company's IPO occurred on July 15, 2015. In the IPO, the
Company sold 9,315,009 shares of common stock at a public offering
price of $17 per share. The Company received net proceeds of
approximately $143.6 million from the IPO. The proceeds from the
IPO were purportedly to be used, in part, to support the clinical
and manufacturing activities related to PNT2258. In addition, on
July 21 ,2015, immediately prior to the closing of the IPO, all
outstanding shares of convertible and redeemable convertible
preferred stock converted into 18,361,953 shares of common stock,
and on the closing of the IPO, the company issued 750,946 shares
of common stock to the holders of its Series C and D redeemable
convertible preferred stock in settlement of the cumulative
dividends.

However, PNT2258 was not all the Company had made it out to be in
the IPO. On June 6, 2016, the Company issued a press release
announcing interim data from the Wolverine trial. Specifically,
the Company disclosed that it observed only modest efficacy from
PNT2258. The Company further stated that; it did not view the
results as robust enough to justify continued development of the
drug in DLBCL. ProNAi also stated that, as a result, it would
suspend development of PNT2258 pending further review of the data.
On this news, ProNAi's stock price fell $4.3l per share, or 67.5%,
to close at $2.07 per share on June 6; 2016, on unusually heavy
trading volume. On November 17, 2016, ProNAi's stock price closed
at $1.53 per share, a decline of $15.47, or 91% from the IPO price
of $17-per share.

ProNAi is a clinical stage oncology company that claims to be
pioneering a novel class of therapeutics based on the Company's
proprietary DNA interference (DNAi) technology platform.

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 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Teiephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com


PULTE HOME: "Parker" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------
in the lawsuit titled SHAUN PARKER GAZZARA, ANA PAULA GAZZARA,
HARRY JAMES WHITMAN and MARCIA FAYE WHITMAN, as individuals, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. PULTE HOME CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00657-GAP-TBS (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

   "all individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or other
   entities that currently own single family detached residences,
   condominiums, or townhomes (homes) constructed by Pulte in
   Florida between April 18, 2006 and April 18, 2016, with a
   Drainage Plane Exterior Stucco Wall System over Wood Frame and
   Wood Sheathing (STUCCO SIDING), which contains dissimilar
   materials, specifically Portland cement-aggregate plaster mix
   designed for use on exterior surfaces and either steel,
   aluminum, plastic, vinyl, or other inert materials from that
   of the Portland cement-aggregate plaster mix, or contain
   stucco surfaces which are either (a) in excess of 144
   contiguous square feet, or (b) are greater than eighteen (18)
   linear feet in length, or (c) have a surface area with a
   length to width ratio greater than two and one half to one, or
   both.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to define the class and the
class claims, issues, or defenses, and appoint the undersigned as
class counsel. The Court should then appoint a Special Master to
supervise repairs and resolutions of claims of class members over
time as the repairs are performed.

Plaintiffs sue for violations of Florida's building code in stucco
siding constructed by Pulte. Pulte constructed 17,119 homes under
its name, and another 12,801 under brand names that meet the class
definition. The code violations in these Florida residences result
in cracked walls requiring extensive replacement. Due to the
amounts involved, the large number of
claimants, the similar violations in each home, common issues
across the class, and the resources of Pulte, a class action is
the appropriate vehicle to ensure uniform enforcement of the
Florida building code and adequate remedies for all homeowners.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=r09E5VUa

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael C. Sasso, Esq.
          David F. Tegeler, Esq.
          SASSO & SASSO, P.A.
          1031 West Morse Blvd., Suite 120
          Winter Park, Florida 32789
          Telephone: (407) 644 7161
          Facsimile: (407) 629 6727
          E-mail: notice@sasso-law.com
                  msasso@sasso-law.com
                  kdevore@sasso-law.com
                  dtegeler@sasso-law.com

               - and -

          John W. Frost, II, Esq.
          LYDIA S. ZBRZEZNJ, Esq.
          FROST VAN DEN BOOM, P.A.
          395 South Central Avenue
          Bartow, FL 33830
          Telephone: (863) 533-0314
          Facsimile: (863) 533 8985
          E-mail: jfrost1985@aol.com
                  lmatlock@fvdblaw.com
                  lzbrzeznj@fvdblaw.com

               - and -

          Gordon H. Harris, Esq.
          HARRIS HARRIS BAUERLE
          ZIEGLER LOPEZ
          1201 East Robinson Street
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 472 1555
          Facsimile: (407) 843 0444
          E-mail: stumpy@hhbzflorida.com
                  Evelyn@hhbzflorida.com

               - and -

          Michael Paul Beltran, Esq.
          BELTRAN LITIGATION, P.A.
          405 S. Dale Mabry Hwy. #370
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 870 3073
          E-mail: mike@beltranlitigation.com


RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Sued in N.Y. Over Disability Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cristhian Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
06487 (E.D.N.Y., November 22, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to remove architectural and communication
barriers in existing stores, denying equal access to disabled
persons.

Raymours Furniture Company, Inc. operates a furniture retail
chain, based in the Northeastern United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com

READY PAC: "Carcamo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS PONCE CARCAMO, individual, on his own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. READY PAC
PRODUCE, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC641359 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov.
18, 2016), seeks relief as a result of the Defendant's unlawful
employment policies, practices and procedures, which have resulted
in the failure of Defendant to pay Plaintiff and members of the
Plaintiff Class all wages due to them.

The Defendant allegedly failed to provide Plaintiff and members of
the Plaintiff Class with a statutorily mandated meal break,
accurate wage statements, all wages due in a timely manner at
termination, and maintain records in violation of Labor Code.

Ready Pac produces and markets salads, fruits, vegetables, and
snacks. The company also packages and distributes Taco Bell brand
products. It operates under the brand names Bistro, Ready Snax,
Cool Cuts, and elevAteTM. The company distributes in supermarkets
and restaurant chains across North America. Ready Pac Produce,
Inc. was founded in 1969 and is based in Irwindale, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 212 5124
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609 0892


RIVERDALE CAR: Faces "Pineda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Pineda and Obdulio Antonio Mata, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Riverdale Car Wash & Detail Center, Inc.
d/b/a Riverdale Car Wash, MVP Car Wash, LLC d/b/a MVP Car Wash,
Peter Della Mura, and Salvatore Della Mura, Case No. 1:16-cv-09100
(S.D.N.Y., November 22, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a car wash shop located at 309 W
230th St., Bronx, NY 10463.

Rafael Pineda and Obdulio Antonio Mata are pro se plaintiffs.


ROCHESTER GAS: Fails to Pay Earned Wages and Overtime, Rode Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG RODE; JEFFREY HAGADORN; and DAVID ORTEGA, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. ROCHESTER GAS &
ELECTRIC CORP., Case No. 6:16-cv-06755 (W.D.N.Y., November 21,
2016), accuses the Defendant of failing to all pay earned wages
and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. is a public utility company that
supplies electricity and natural gas to customers in a nine-county
region centered on the city of Rochester, New York.  The Company
is incorporated under the laws of the state of New York and its
principal place of business is located in Rochester.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian J. LaClair, Esq.
          BLITMAN & KING LLP
          Franklin Center, Suite 300
          443 North Franklin Street
          Syracuse, NY 13204
          Telephone: (315) 422-7111
          Facsimile: (315) 471-2623
          E-mail: bjlaclair@bklawyers.com


ROSE TREE CONDOMINIUM: Sued by ADA Realty for Mishandling Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case ADA REALTY TRUST v. ROSE TREE CONDOMINIUM TRUST,
ROBERT N. LUSARDI, AS TRUSTEE, BENJAMIN CAGGIANO, AS TRUSTEE,
EDWARD APRILE, AS TRUSTEE, AND ROBERT N. LUSARDI, INDIVIDUALLY,
Case No. 16-3294 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., November 16,
2016), the plaintiff, ADA Realty Trust, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Unit Owners, alleges that the Defendants
mishandled various safety and maintenance issues.

The action seeks judicial findings and relief relative to a
commercial condominium building, owned and operated as a
condominium trust.  ADA Realty, a real estate trust, maintains an
interest in the building and has raised various code violations
that have not been addressed by building management.  The code
violations concern property and casualty exposures, as well as
health and wellness issues, the Plaintiff alleges.

Rose Tree Condominium Trust is a condominium trust established
under G.L. 183A for commercial condominiums, and located in
Middlesex County, Massachusetts.  The Individual Defendants serve
in the Board of Trustees and Building Management for the Rose Tree
Condominium Trust.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Dennehy, Esq.
          DENNEHY LAW
          127 Main Street, Suite 1
          Nashua, NH 03060
          Telephone: (603) 943-7633
          E-mail: jdennehy@dennehylaw.com


SCOTT KERNAN: Court Denied Class Certification in "Hicks"
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL J. HICKS, B-80852, the Plaintiff, v.
SCOTT KERNAN, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00738-CRB
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Charles R. Breyer enter an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Defendants'
      motion to dismiss; and

   2. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
      appointment of counsel.

The Court said, "In order to state a section 1983 claim for
damages against Defendants for the 29 days he spent in SVSP's ASU,
Plaintiff must set forth allegations that Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's mental health needs.
Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to raise an inference that
Defendants knew that Plaintiff faced a substantial risk
of serious harm to his mental health and disregarded that risk by
failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. See Farmer, 511
U.S. at 837, 844-45. Plaintiff does not. There is no allegation or
indication that Defendants knew that Plaintiff faced a substantial
risk of Defendants are also entitled to dismissal of Plaintiff's
section 1983 claims for damages against them in their official
capacity. See Will v Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,
71 (1989) (explaining that neither a state nor its officials
acting in their official capacities are "persons" under section
1983). After all, it was Plaintiff who requested placement in
SVSP's ASU until he could be transferred elsewhere. Plaintiff does
not state a plausible section 1983 claim for damages against
Defendants for deliberate indifference to his mental health needs
at SVSP. That Defendants should have known that Plaintiff could
suffer harm to his mental health from a 29-day stay in ASU pending
a transfer to another facility at most states a negligence claim
not actionable under section 1983. Maintaining a class action
requires that (1) the class be so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable, (2) there are common questions of law
and fact, (3) the representative party's claims or defenses be
typical of the class claims or defenses, and (4) the
representative party will fairly and adequately protect the class
interests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Plaintiff has not met these
requirements. His remaining claim for damages in this action --
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety needs when
they approved his transfer to MCSP despite his protests that he
had numerous unlisted enemies there -- is a separate and distinct
claim from his proposed challenge to CDCR's use of an unfiltered
LEXIS inmate law computer program, and he has not shown that he
would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed
class. See also Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65
(9th Cir. 2008) (stating that courts have routinely adhered to
general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on
behalf of others in a representative capacity)".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Qn0yc9mo


SPORTS GRILL: "Fletcher" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned WAYNE FLETCHER, the Plaintiff, v. SPORTS
GRILL RESTAURANT, LLC et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
24076-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to
conditionally certify and authorize plaintiff to mail and e-mail
notice of the lawsuit and consent to become a party Plaintiff form
to:

   "all restaurant workers who performed work for Defendant
   statewide during the last three years who were not paid proper
   overtime compensation (i.e. for the hours over 40 during any
   work week of their employment within the applicable statute of
   limitations period".

The case is a collective action to enforce the overtime provisions
of Section 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Lead
Plaintiff, Wayne Fletcher (Plaintiffs), was a restaurant employee,
who worked for Defendant from on or about August 1, 2013 through
August 1, 2016. On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit
on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated alleging
that he and the other restaurant employees who worked for
Defendants, Sports Grill Restaurant, LLC stores, statewide, were
not properly paid overtime wages. Specifically, Plaintiff claims
that he and the other covered restaurant employees were subject to
a companywide policy whereby they were not paid overtime
(Defendant improperly paid overtime wages in cash).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mN3GCNU9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Yagoda, Esq.
          ANDREW S. YAGODA, P.A.
          232 Andalusia Ave Ste 201
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-5914
          Telephone: 305 441 9958
          Facsimile: 305 442 9967
          E-mail: ayagoda@yagodalaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexander Lynch Wildman, Esq.
          DANIELS, RODRIGUEZ, BERKELEY,
          DANIELS AND CRUZ, P.A.
          4000 Ponce De Leon Blvd. Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33146
          Telephone: (585) 315 2641
          E-mail: awildman@drbdc-law.com

               - and -

          Lorne Ethan, Esq.
          Berkeley Daniels Kashtan
          4000 Ponce De Leon Boulevard Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33146
          Telephone: 305 448 7988
          Facsimile: 305 448 7978
          E-mail: lberkeley@dkdr.com


SSC LEXINGTON: "Allen" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CYNTHIA ALLEN, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. SSC
LEXINGTON OPERATING COMPANY LLC, a North Carolina Limited
Liability Company, d/b/a BRIAN CENTER NURSING CARE/LEXINGTON, the
Defendant, Case No 1:16-cv-01080-WO-JEP. (M.D. N.Car.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
      for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for a
      conditional class defined as:

      "all current and former Nurses or other job titles
      performing similar job duties employed by BRIAN CENTER
      NURSING CARE/LEXINGTON at any time during the last three
      years;

   2. approving the Court-Authorized Notice and Consent to Sue
      form;

   3. compelling Defendant SSC Lexington Operating Company LLC, a
      North Carolina Limited Liability Company, d/b/a Brian
      Center Nursing Care/Lexington (Defendant or Brian Center)
      to produce within 14 days of the Order granting this
      Motion, the full name, all known addresses, email
      addresses, and telephone numbers of the potential class
      members;

   4. permitting Plaintiff's Counsel to send, within 14 days of
      receipt of the Class list from Defendant, the Court-
      authorized Notice and Consent to Sue form via U.S. Mail and
      electronic mail to putative Class members;

   5. requiring Defendant post a copy of the Court-authorized
      Notice in its facility;

   6. allowing 60 days for putative Class members to return their
      Consent to Sue form to Plaintiff's Counsel for filing with
      the Court; and

   7. appointing the counsel, Johnson Becker, PLLC and Elliot
      Morgan Parsonage, PLLC as counsel for members of the
      putative Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jwx6nM8e

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436 1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436 1801
          E-mail: mnephew@johnsonbecker.com
                  jrusch@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          Benjamin P. Winikoff, Esq.
          ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, PLLC
          426 Old Salem Road
          Winston Salem, NC 27101
          Telephone: (336) 724 2828
          Facsimile: (336) 724 3335
          E-mail: bpwinikoff@emplawfirm.com


SUBWAY 39077: Judge Scola Denied FLSA Class Cert. Bid in "Aguiar"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Yirandi Aguiar, and others, the Plaintiffs,
v. Subway 39077, Inc., Timothy E. Johnson, and others, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23399-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Robert N. Scola, Jr. entered an order denying Plaintiff Yirandi
Aguiar motion for certification of a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA).

The Court declines to certify the following FLSA class of:

"Store Managers working at approximately thirty-eight Subway
franchises owned and operated by Johnson".

The Court said, "Aguiar's proposed collective action faces a
number of significant and fatal hurdles. First, Aguiar purports to
create a class of individuals employed or formerly employed by
approximately thirty-eight separate, non-party corporate
entities. Aguiar cites no precedent that would allow her and the
newly added plaintiffs, Leon and Smith, to initiate a collective
action against three corporate defendants -- Subways 39077, 1405,
and 5142 -- that had no employment relationship with the putative
plaintiffs. Second, Aguiar has failed to show the existence of any
employees -- other than ones already involved in this or other
actions  --  who wish to opt in to this action. These two factors
alone defeat Aguiar's request to certify a collective action.
Yet, even if Aguiar were to somehow clear these two hurdles, the
Court does not consider the putative plaintiffs to be similarly
situated under the lenient standards applicable here. The Court's
decision in Laos, upon which Aguiar partly relies in support of
her request for certification, remains instructive on this point.
There, this Court granted conditional certification of a
collective action against two car dealerships, owned and operated
by the same defendant. The plaintiff in Laos, aside from
presenting evidence of other employees who wished to opt in,
demonstrated: (1) he worked at one dealership, but he and the
other putative plaintiffs were authorized to sell vehicles at both
dealerships; (2) the two dealerships were located on one
contiguous lot; (3) a single payroll department paid employees at
both dealerships; and (4) the same individual supervised both
dealerships. These facts allowed the court to find that the
putative plaintiffs were similarly situated for the purposes of
the FLSA lawsuit. Here, however, each plaintiff and putative
plaintiff was employed at a separate corporate entity. Aguiar has
not shown and has not alleged that she or the other employees were
authorized to sell or make sandwiches at any of the other thirty-
eight Subway franchises. These other franchises are not located on
one property -- instead, they are spread throughout a vast
geographic area. The affidavits attached to the motion include no
information regarding a joint payroll department and no
information specifying who supervised the Store Managers".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=foF4CQ0s


SYMPHONY DIAGNOSTIC: Reddick Seeks Certification of Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled GODFREY JAYSON REDDICK, on behalf of
herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SYMPHONY DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES NO. 1,
INC., d/b/a/ MOBILEXUSA, LLC, AMERICAN DIAGNOSTICS SERVICES, INC.,
and TRIDENTUSA MOBILE CLINICAL SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-09959 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional and
class certification and request for discovery on certification
issues.

The case is class and collective action brought by Plaintiff
Godfrey Jayson Reddick to redress Defendants' systematic, improper
and willful failure to pay wages and overtime compensation to
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals as required by
both federal and Illinois law. Plaintiff is filing the motion
under guidance from the decision in Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., 2016 WL 4593825 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2016) to avoid a
mootness issue that may result from the entry of an Order granting
Defendants leave to deposit funds with the Court's registry
intended for the Named Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asks that the
motion be entered and continued and he be allowed to conduct
necessary collective and class discovery to support this motion.

The Plaintiff's proposed collective class pursuant for Fair labor
Standards Act is defined as:

   "all individuals who were employed, or are currently employed,
   by the Defendants as mobile ultrasound technologists,
   sonographers, ultrasound technicians or any other similarly-
   titled position at any time from three (3) years prior to the
   filing of this action to the entry of judgement in this action
   who give their consent, in writing, to become party plaintiffs
   (the FLSA Class)".

The Plaintiff's proposed class pursuant to Illinois Minimum Wage
Law is d efined as:

   "all individuals who were employed, or are currently employed,
   by Defendants as mobile ultrasound technologists,
   sonographers, ultrasound technicians or any other similarly-
   titled position in the State of Illinois at any time from
   three years prior to the filing of this action to the entry of
   judgment".

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Stephan Zouras, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: www.stephanzouras.com


SYSCO GUEST: Gorrs Motels Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. SYSCO GUEST SUPPLY,
LLC, a Delaware corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01911 (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
for an order:

   a. taking the motion under submission and deferring further
      activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be
      set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order, or
      alternatively;

   b. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Mzf0SWL4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358 5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571 0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

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


T & B MANAGEMENT: Chavez, et al. Seek Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled VANESSA CHAVEZ, AMY BERLAK, BROOKE GRAHAM,
and MELISSA VARNER on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. T & B MANAGEMENT, LLC and T
& B CONCEPTS OF HICKORY, LLC, each d/b/a HICKORY TAVERN, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01019-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying a class of similarly situated
       former and current tipped server and bartender employees
       of defendants T & B Management, LLC and T & B Concepts of
       Hickory, LLC, each d/b/a Hickory Tavern, (collectively
       "Hickory Tavern") restaurants throughout North Carolina,
       South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, and any other state in
       which a Hickory Tavern restaurant is located since three
       (3) years prior to the date of filing of Plaintiffs'
       Complaint in this action on August 1, 2016;

   (2) compelling Hickory Tavern to provide Plaintiffs with the
       names, last known addresses, cellular telephone numbers,
       and e-mail addresses of each putative member employee in a
       mail merge type program like Excel; and

   (3) approving and authorizing the issuance of Plaintiffs'
       proposed notice of conditional certification to all
       putative class members in the manner requested.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9vcJzd3S

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Roberts, III, Esq.
          Paul R. Dickinson, Jr., Esq.
          LEWIS & ROBERTS, PLLC
          3700 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 410 (27612)
          P. O. Box 17529
          Raleigh, NC 27619-7529
          Telephone: (919) 981 0191
          Facsimile: (919) 981 0199
          E-mail: jar@lewis-roberts.com
                  prd@lewis-roberts.com


TEXAS BRINE: Sanchez Seeks Certification of Land Owners Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned DIANNE SANCHEZ, ET AL. v.
TEXAS BRINE, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:12-cv-02059-JCZ-MBN (E.D.
La.), moves the Court to certify a class defined as:

     All land owners who own land, but who did not reside on that
     land, that is within a 2 mile radius of the sinkhole which
     includes all land within the following areas:

     All of Sections 36, 35, 34, 39, 40, 41, 48, 47 and 46.
     NE 1/4 Sec 51
     N 1/2 Sec 52
     NW 1/4 Sec 53
     SW 1/4 Sec 33
     W 1/2 Sec 42
     NW 1/4 Sec 45
     SE 1/4 Sec 37
     E 1/2 Sec 38
     NE l/4 Sec 49
     SE 1/4 Sec 27
     S 1/2 Sec 28
     SW 1/4 See 29 A

     Anyone that previously settled with Texas Brine is
     specifically excluded from the class.

In their memorandum filed in support of the Motion, Dianne
Sanchez, et al., contend that the claims of the class
representatives are typical of the claims of members of the
putative class.

The proposed class representatives are Michael Landry, Mary Russo,
Leah Payne, and Bryan Stephen Woodward.  The proposed class
representatives are Louisiana residents or businesses, who own
non-residential property in the area impacted by the sinkhole
in question and who are not members of the settlement class
certified by this court on April 8, 2014 in "Leblanc et al v.
Texas Brine Co., LLC et al., " 2:12-cv-02069-JCZ-MBN, Eastern
District of Louisiana.

A copy of the Memorandum is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SKs1dua7

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Calvin C. Fayard, Jr., Esq.
          FAYARD & HONEYCUTT
          519 Florida Ave., SW
          Denham Springs, LA 70726
          Telephone: (225) 664-4193
          E-mail: calvinfayard@fayardlaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD, & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-9065
          Facsimile: (504) 581-7635
          E-mail: lcentola@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
          106 W. Seventh St.
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Telephone: (985) 536-1186
          Facsimile: (985) 536-6445
          E-mail: mmoreland@becnellaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Perque, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD PERQUE LLC
          700 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524-3306
          Facsimile: (504) 529-4179
          E-mail: richard@perquelaw.com


TEAM WOW: "Nelson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
AARON NELSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. TEAM WOW, LLC, MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA,
INC., PRIMA PIZZA, INC. and LONGHORN PIZZA, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02825 (D. Col., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
and the Colorado Minimum Wage of Workers Act (CMWWA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants employ delivery drivers
who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food
items to Defendants' customers. Instead of reimbursing their
delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the
business use of their vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to
determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably
low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they
incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to
fall below the minimum wage during some or all workweeks.

Defendants Team Wow, LLC, Mountainside Pizza, Inc., Prima Pizza,
Inc. and Longhorn Pizza, Inc. together operate approximately 37
Domino's Pizza stores in Colorado, California and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
          PAUL McINNES LLP
          601 Walnut, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 981 8100
          Facsimile: (816) 981 8101
          E-mail: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997 9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997 9170
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com


TIMELINE LOGISTICS: Sauls Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDDIE SAULS on behalf of herself, individually and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. TIMELINE LOGISTICS INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03416 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 18, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, equitable relief,
compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, taxable
costs of court, and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant mischaracterized
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as independent
contractors. This mischaracterization was a deliberate scheme of
depriving Plaintiff and similarly employees of their rightfully
owed overtime wages. To create the appearance of an independent
contractor relationship, defendant would create weekly "invoices",
mark them "paid" and pay Plaintiffs according to the invoices.
These invoices would not list all of the hours worked by
Plaintiffs, nor would they list Plaintiff's hourly rate of pay.
Plaintiff was paid $8.48 per hour but the invoices were generated
to conceal his hourly rate and shield the true nature of the
employer-employee relationship. The Plaintiffs and similarly
situated Driver's Helpers were denied time and a half for overtime
hours worked above 40 per week.

Timeline Logistics provides delivery and courier services.

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



TINDER INC: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over "Anti-American" Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLAN CANDELORE, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TINDER, INC.; and DOES 1-50,
the Defendants, Case No. BC641358 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 18,
2016), seeks actual and statutory damages as a result Tinder's
anti-American pricing, pursuant to Unruh Civil Rights Act.

According to the complaint, Tinder charged and continues to charge
consumers different prices for its Tinder Plus service based on
the consumers' citizenship, primary language, or immigration
status, with United States citizens being charged more than all
other customers. For example, Tinder charges United
States citizens as much as $19.99 per month for Tinder Plus, but
charges customers who are citizens of other countries as little as
$2.99 per month for the same thing -- no matter the customers'
gross income, disposable income, or net worth. Tinder also charges
U.S. citizens the highest price for Tinder Plus even though the
U.S. national debt of over $19,500,000,000.00 -- and counting --
dwarfs the national debt of any other country, with the share of
this debt for each Tinder Plus customer who is a U.S. citizen
being over $61,000, and the share for each Tinder Plus customer
who is a U.S. citizen and a taxpayer being over $ 166,000.

Defendant Tinder owns and operates the wildly successful online
matchmaking application eponymously named "Tinder".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfred G. Rava, Esq.
          RAVA LAW FIRM
          3667 Voltaire Street
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 238 1993
          Facsimile: (619) 374 7288
          E-mail: alrava@cox.net


U.S. BANK: "Smith" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JEREMY SMITH, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. U.S.
BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21146-UU (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for order certifying a class of:

   "any person who had a FHA-insured loan for which (1) the Date
   of the Note is within a period beginning on June 1, 1996 and
   ending on January 20, 2015; (2) U.S. Bank, as of the date the
   total amount due on the loan was brought to zero, was the
   Lender, Mortgagee, or otherwise held legal title to the Note;
   (3) U.S. Bank collected interest for any period after the
   total amount due on the loan was brought to zero (i.e., U.S.
   Bank collected "post-payment interest"); and (4) U.S. Bank
   collected post-payment interest during the applicable statute
   of limitations period".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Smith as the class
representative and Smith's counsel as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gx828STK

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett M. Amron, Esq.
          Jeremy S. Korch, Esq.
          BAST AMRON, LLP
          One Southeast Third Ave Ste 1400
          Miami, FL 33131
          E-mail: bamron@bastamron.com
                  jkorch@bastamron.com

               - and -

          Michael B. Terry, Esq.
          Steven J. Rosenwasser, Esq.
          Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq.
          Fredric J. Bold, Jr.
          BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
          1201 W Peachtree St NW Ste 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          E-mail: terry@bmelaw.com
                  rosenwasser@bmelaw.com
                  ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com
                  bold@bmelaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin E. Epps, Esq.
          Adam L. Hoipkemier
          EPPS, HOLLOWAY, DELOACH &
          HOIPKEMIER, LLC
          1220 Langford Dr Bldg 200 Ste 101
          Watkinsville, GA 30677
          E-mail: kevin@ehdlaw.com
                  adam@ehdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul F. Hancock, Esq.
          Olivia Kelman, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          200 S Biscayne Blvd Ste 3900
          Miami, FL 33131-2399
          E-mail: paul.hancock@klgates.com
          olivia.kelman@klgates.com

               - and -

          Christopher T. Shaheen, Esq.
          Eric Sherman, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          50 S Sixth St Ste 1500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
          E-mail: shaheen.chris@dorsey.com
                  sherman.eric@dorsey.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Metter" Suit Seeks to Scrap Cancellation Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIAN METTER, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-06652-EDL (N.D.
Cal., November 11, 2016), alleges that Uber's automatic
cancellation fees, and entire cancellation fee practices, are
arbitrarily and unfairly imposed to the sole detriment of Riders
(but to the benefit of Uber) and therefore must be stopped.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. operates a ride-sharing business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lee A. Cirsch, Esq.
     Robert K. Friedl, Esq.
     Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
     CAPSTONE LAW APC
     1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 556-4811
     Fax: (310) 943-0396
     E-mail: Lee.Cirsch@capstonelawyers.com
             Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
             Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com

        - and -

     Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
     6220 West Third Street, #115
     Los Angeles, CA 90036
     Phone: (323) 424-4194
     E-mail: francisflynn@gmail.com


UNITED RECOVERY: Kroell May Refile Bid to Certify, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on November 15, 2016, in the case
titled Michael Kroell v. United Recovery Systems, LP, et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-10524 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable John J. Tharp Jr.

The minute entry states that:

   -- The motion for class certification is denied without
      prejudice and the motion to enter and continue the motion
      for class certification is denied as moot.  No appearance
      on the motions is required;

   -- The Court does not accept prophylactic class certification
      motions in light of Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct.
      663 (2016) and Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783
      (7th Cir. 2015); and

   -- If the Plaintiff is prepared to proceed on the motion as
      briefed, the Plaintiff may refile it; alternatively, the
      motion may be refiled at any point that Plaintiff is
      prepared to proceed with substantive briefing.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iFH4EPN4


UNITED STATES: Seeks Until Nov. 30 to File Response in "Reyes"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MANUEL REYES, the Movant. v. UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, the Respondent, Case No. 1:16-cv-22877-JAL (S.D.
Fla.), the United States moves the Court for a two-week extension
of time within which to file its response to Movant Manuel Reyes'
amended motion to vacate his sentence.  The motion is unopposed.

The United States response was due November 14, 2016.  The
government's counsel explained that he is preparing to leave the
U.S. Attorney's office -- permanently -- and has fallen behind in
attempting to meet a number of deadlines. Furthermore, this
particular matter raises legal issues -- whether Hobbs Act
conspiracy is a crime of violence in light of recent case law --
requiring consultation with various components of the Department
to ensure that our position is legally consistent and correct.  He
noted that counsel for Mr. Reyes has graciously agreed to a short
continuance until November 30th to file the response.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wB1bVMEF

The Respondent is represented by:

          Wilfredo Fernandez, Esq.
          ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
          99 N.E. 4th Street, 4th Floor
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 961 9184


UNO CONSTRUCTION: "Rosario" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moises Rosario, Gabriel Rincon, Froylan Romero, Yoquel Vargas, and
Juan Aquino, on behalf of themselves and all others persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Uno Construction Corp.,
Walid Halak, and Mohammad Halak, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06413 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages for
overtime work and liquidated damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs any overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours
in a workweek, failed to supply written notice providing
information required by the Wage Theft Prevention Act; and failed
to supply weekly records.

UNO Construction was formerly known as Scarsdale Construction Ltd.
As a result of its acquisition by UNO Group Ltd., the name of
Scarsdale Construction Ltd. was changed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563 9884
          E-mail: michael@samuellandstein.com


VMWARE INC: Suits Arising From Dell Acquisition Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits alleging breach of fiduciary duties in connection
with the Dell Acquisition remains pending, according to VMware,
Inc.'s November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2016.

On November 17, 2015, Francis M. Ford, a VMware Class A
stockholder, filed an action in the Delaware Chancery Court
against certain current and former VMware directors, among others,
alleging that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Dell Acquisition, and the proposed issuance of
tracking stock that is intended to track the performance of
VMware. The plaintiff does not assert claims directly against
VMware, but purports to bring class claims on behalf of other
VMware Class A stockholders and derivative claims on behalf of
VMware.

In addition, on November 10, 2015, David Jacobs, also a VMware
stockholder, filed an action in Massachusetts Superior Court
against, among others, EMC and four directors who serve on both
the EMC board and the VMware board, setting forth similar
allegations to those in the Ford matter.

While VMware does not believe that the cases represent material
adverse exposures, no assurances can be given that the litigation
will not have any adverse consequences for the company or the
directors named in the suits.


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: $9-Mil. Settlement Paid in Third Quarter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vocera Communications, Inc.'s $9 million settlement resolving a
consolidated securities litigation was funded by its insurance
carriers and paid during this quarter, according to the Company's
November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

On August 1 and 21, 2013, two putative securities class action
suits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
its officers, its board of directors, a former director and the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering.

On November 20, 2013, the court consolidated the actions as In re
Vocera Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed
Lead Plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint on September 19, 2014. The consolidated complaint named
certain current and former officers and directors and the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering and
secondary offering and alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act based on allegedly false and materially misleading
statements and omissions in the registration statement for the
Company's initial public offering and secondary offering and in
communications regarding its business and financial results. The
suit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between March 28, 2012 and May 2, 2013, and
sought compensatory damages, rescission, fees and costs, as well
as other relief.  On November 3, 2014 Defendants moved to dismiss
the consolidated complaint. On February 11, 2015, the Court
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims,
but denied the motion as to the Exchange Act claims, allowing the
matter to proceed on that basis. On April 27, 2015 Defendants
filed answers to the consolidated complaint.

A mediation in October 2015 resulted in an agreement in principle
to settle the suit. On March 4, 2016, the Court issued an order
granting Lead Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement.

The settlement, which called for payment of $9 million, was funded
entirely and directly by the Company's insurance carriers and paid
during the three months ended September 30, 2016.


WELLS FARGO: "Miller" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ANNA MILLER, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21145-UU (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "any person who had a FHA-insured loan for which (1) the Date
   of the Note is within a period beginning on June 1, 1996 and
   ending on January 20, 2015; (2) U.S. Bank, as of the date the
   total amount due on the loan was brought to zero, was the
   Lender, Mortgagee, or otherwise held legal title to the Note;
   (3) U.S. Bank collected interest for any period after the
   total amount due on the loan was brought to zero (i.e., U.S.
   Bank collected "post-payment interest"); and (4) U.S. Bank
   collected post-payment interest during the applicable statute
   of limitations period".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint miller as the
class representative and Miller's counsel as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=O5VIK7ml

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett M. Amron, Esq.
          Jeremy S. Korch, Esq.
          BAST AMRON, LLP
          One Southeast Third Ave Ste 1400
          Miami, FL 33131
          E-mail: bamron@bastamron.com
                  jkorch@bastamron.com

               - and -

          Michael B. Terry, Esq.
          Steven J. Rosenwasser, Esq.
          Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq.
          Fredric J. Bold, Jr.
          BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
          1201 W Peachtree St NW Ste 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          E-mail: terry@bmelaw.com
                  rosenwasser@bmelaw.com
                  ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com
                  bold@bmelaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin E. Epps, Esq.
          Adam L. Hoipkemier
          EPPS, HOLLOWAY, DELOACH &
          HOIPKEMIER, LLC
          1220 Langford Dr Bldg 200 Ste 101
          Watkinsville, GA 30677
          E-mail: kevin@ehdlaw.com
                  adam@ehdlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          R. Eric Bilik, Esq.
          Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, Esq.
          Emily Y. Rottmann, Esq.
          Daniel M. Mahfood, Esq.
          McGuireWoods LLP
          50 N Laura St, Ste 3300
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          E-mail: ebilik@mcguirewoods.com
                  stobias@mcguirewoods.com
                  erottmann@mcguirewoods.com
                  dmahfood@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          K. Issac deVyver, Esq.
          Karla L. Johnson, Esq.
          McGuire Woods LLP
          625 Liberty Ave, 23rd Fl
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          E-mail: kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com
                  kjohnson@mcguirewoods.com


WEST COAST TRUCKING: "Perez" Suit Alleges Overtime Wage Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AGUSTIN PEREZ and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. WEST COAST TRUCKING CORP., MANUEL QUINTERO, Case No.
1:16-cv-24852-MGC (S.D. Fla., November 21, 2016), alleges overtime
wage violations pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

West Coast Trucking Corp. is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County, Florida.  Manuel Quintero
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


WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS: Zepeda Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA ZEPEDA, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01166-FB (W.D. Tex., Nov. 18, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from the Defendant,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendant has allegedly violated the FLSA by failing to pay
Zepeda overtime for each hour she worked in excess of 40 hours per
work week. Accordingly, Zepeda brings this collective action on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated to recover unpaid
wages and related damages under Section 216(b) of the FLSA.

Whataburger is an American privately held regional fast food
restaurant chain, based in San Antonio, Texas, that specializes in
hamburgers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Goldberg, Esq.
          Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          JEFFREY A. GOLDBERG
          15303 Huebner Road, Building 13
          San Antonio, TX 78248
          Telephone: (210) 690 2200
          Facsimile: (210) 690 0438
          E-mail: jeff@jeffreygoldberglaw.com


WILLIS TOWERS: Consolidated Suit Over Merger Has Been Closed
------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
consolidated lawsuit challenging the merger of Willis Group
Holdings Public Limited Company and Towers Watson & Co. has been
closed.

Five putative class action complaints challenging the Merger were
filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware,
captioned New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund v.
Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11270-CB (filed on July 9,
2015), Stein v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11271-CB
(filed on July 9, 2015), City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension
Fund v. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 11275-CB (filed on July 10, 2015),
Cordell v. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 11358-CB (filed on July 31,
2015), and Mills v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11423-CB
(filed on August 24, 2015).  The Stein action was voluntarily
dismissed on July 28, 2015.  These complaints were filed by
purported stockholders of Towers Watson on behalf of a putative
class comprised of all Towers Watson stockholders. The complaints
sought, among other things, to enjoin the Merger, and generally
alleged that Towers Watson's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Towers Watson stockholders by agreeing to merge Towers
Watson with Willis through an inadequate and unfair process, which
led to inadequate and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to
unfair deal protection devices.  The complaints also alleged that
Willis and the Merger Sub formed for purposes of consummating the
Merger aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
by Towers Watson directors.  On August 17, 2015, the court
consolidated the New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity
Fund, City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund, and Cordell
actions (the Mills action had not yet been filed) and any other
actions then pending or thereafter filed arising out of the same
issues of fact under the caption In re Towers Watson & Co.
Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11270-CB.

On September 9, 2015, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
and in Mills filed a consolidated amended complaint, which, among
other things, added claims for alleged misstatements and omissions
from a preliminary proxy statement and prospectus for the Merger
dated August 27, 2015.  On September 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a
motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for a preliminary
injunction, which motions plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew on
October 19, 2015.  On December 14, 2015, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On April 1,
2016, the court consolidated the Mills action into the
consolidated action. On April 18, 2016, the court dismissed the
consolidated action as moot, set a briefing schedule for
plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, and scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs'
fee and expense application for June 28, 2016. On April 27, 2016,
plaintiffs filed a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, requesting an aggregate fee and expense award of at
least $1.7 million. On June 8, 2016, defendants filed their
opposition to the petition. After negotiations, the parties agreed
in principle to resolve the petition for a payment of $250,000 to
plaintiffs' counsel by the Company.

On July 29, 2016, the court entered a proposed order submitted by
the parties closing the consolidated action for all purposes.

                       About Willis Towers

Willis Towers Watson is a global advisory, broking and solutions
company that helps clients around the world turn risk into a path
for growth. The Company provides both specialized risk management
advisory, broking and consulting services on a global basis to
clients engaged in specific industrial and commercial activities,
and services to small, medium and large corporations through its
retail operations.


WILLIS TOWERS: Final Approval Hearing of Stanford Deal on Jan. 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing to consider final approval of the settlement agreement
resolving the litigation relating to the collapse of The Stanford
Financial Group is scheduled for January 20, 2017, according to
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company's November 7, 2016,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this
manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

The 15 actions are as follows:

   * Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate,
among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative
Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of
a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis
Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory
and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion,
punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint,
arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').

On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland'). On August 31, 2011,
the court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action
with prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing
without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011,
the court entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of
briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing
and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed
and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-
appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19,
2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18,
2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's
reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted
our petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the
Supreme Court heard oral argument on Oct. 7, 2013. On February 26,
2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision.

On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to
Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f)
Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated
to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes
under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March
28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs'
request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss,
but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order;
(b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all
parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties
submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting
a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, which schedule, among other things,
provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on April 20, 2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to
plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in
further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation
also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on
June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the
motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.

On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On
November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle that is described in more
detail below.

   * Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085,
was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and
Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of
a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford
investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida
statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be
determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred,
for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related
actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML').
The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni.
On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice.

   * Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in
the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed
individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan
Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and
common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the
parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of
those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on
December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of
dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice.

   * Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was
filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court
(Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities
Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law
and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than
$300 million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009,
certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i)
removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a
final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern
District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert
to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until
further order of the court.  On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the
court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs
appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5,
2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in
the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action discussed below,
and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24,
2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on
September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint
in Rupert.

   * Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of
seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The
complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and
seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed
an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they
agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion
to dismiss decisions in the Troice action discussed above and the
Janvey action discussed below. Also on February 13, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint
in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings
plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion.

   * Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585,
was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million
and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain
defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed
Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML
of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the
action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should
be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.

On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the
transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it
is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined
with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift
the court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the
court remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but
stayed the action until further order of the court and denied the
plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the
plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the
stay to the Fifth Circuit.

On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with
the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was
fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the
consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On Sept. 16,
2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in Rishmague.

   * MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed
on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately
$4 million and attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas,
Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the
Southern District of Texas to stay the action pending a
determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred
to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or
coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. Also on
April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern
District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District
of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties
stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County))
and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in
accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in
Rishmague (discussed above)), which stipulation was 'so ordered'
by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in MacArthur.

   * Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of
Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging
violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar,
et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al.,
Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors
seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de
Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64
Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5
million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of
two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of
11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on
behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $12.5 million.

On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases
to the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified
the JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10,
2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying
and administratively closing that action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the
other Stanford-related actions. On June 11, 2013, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four actions pending the
JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013, the JPML issued a
conditional transfer order for the transfer of the five actions to
the Northern District of Texas, the transmittal of which was
stayed for seven days to allow for any opposition to be filed. On
June 28, 2013, with no opposition having been filed, the JPML
lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go forward.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria.
On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively,
remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On
January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and
Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and
March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015
and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. We
believe the dismissals were in error and that appeals are likely
to be reinstated. The defendants have not yet responded to the
complaints in Ranni or Barbar.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15,
2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its
entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015,
the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala-
Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On
August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other
things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a
defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by
the court.

   * Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S.
Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the
Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors
Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf
of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against
Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege
claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order
Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege
claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek
actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs. As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of
collective losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford
certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion.

On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative
First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants
unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which
motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted
in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On
December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5
order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First
Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's
motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an
interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit.  On February 4, 2015,
the court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent
necessary, reconsider the December 5 order.

on March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to
the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28,
2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties
requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered
in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification
submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015,
the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in
Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission
date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20,
2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey
scheduling order.

On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle that is described in more
detail below.

   * Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
201652115, was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford
investor against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis
of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state
court (Harris County).  The complaint alleges claims under Texas
statutory and common law and seeks actual damages of less than
$100,000, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  On
September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks
damages in excess of $1 million.  The defendants have not yet
responded to the amended complaint in Martin.

   * Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:16-cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more
than 300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc,
Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate, also in the Northern District of Texas.  The complaint
alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks
actual damages in excess of $135 million, exemplary damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.  The defendants have not yet responded
to the complaint in Abel.

The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions seek
overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a portion
of the total alleged collective losses incurred by investors in
Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the fact that
Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a portion of time
that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In the fourth
quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million litigation
provision for loss contingencies relating to the Stanford matters
based on its ongoing review of a variety of factors as required by
accounting standards.

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and we
have therefore increased our provisions by $50 million. Further
details on this settlement in principle are given below.

The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including
court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any
continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford,
which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of
these matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company
continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation
proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

Settlement.  On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a
settlement in principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet,
relating to the Stanford litigation matter. The Company agreed to
the Settlement Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden,
expense and uncertainty of further litigation. In particular, if
the settlement and the related bar orders described below are
approved by the Court and become effective, the Company (a newly-
combined firm) would be able to conduct itself with the bar
orders' protection from the continued overhang of matters alleged
to have occurred approximately a decade ago. Further, the
Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties understood and
agreed that there was no admission of liability or wrongdoing by
the Company. The Company expressly denies any liability or
wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Stanford
litigation. Specifically, the parties to the Settlement Term Sheet
are Ralph S. Janvey (in his capacity as the Court-appointed
receiver (the 'Receiver') for The Stanford Financial Group and its
affiliated entities in receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')),
the Official Stanford Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha
Diaz, Paula Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel
Canabal, Daniel Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A.
(collectively, 'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers
Watson Public Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc.
and Willis of Colorado, Inc. (collectively, 'Defendants'), on the
other hand.

Under the terms of the Settlement Term Sheet, the parties agreed
in principle to settle and dismiss the Janvey and Troice actions
(collectively, the 'Actions') and all current or future claims
arising from or related to Stanford. If the settlement, including
the bar orders described below, is approved by the Court and is
not subject to further appeal, Willis North America Inc. will make
a one-time cash payment of $120 million to the Receiver to be
distributed to all Stanford investors who have claims recognized
by the Receiver pursuant to the distribution plan in place at the
time the payment is made.

The Settlement Term Sheet also provided the parties' agreement to
seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or
future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties
of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not.
The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all Stanford-
related litigation described above, and not just the Actions,
including any pending matters and any actions that may be brought
in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders is a
condition of the settlement.

On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed
a formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the
settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet.
On September 7, 2016, the plaintiffs in the Troice and Janvey
actions filed with the Court a motion to approve the settlement.
On October 19, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement.

A hearing to consider final approval of the settlement is
scheduled for January 20, 2017. The Actions are stayed pending
final approval of the settlement. The Company says the timing of
any final decision is subject to the discretion of the Court and
any appeal, and the Court may decide not to approve the
settlement.

                       About Willis Towers

Willis Towers Watson is a global advisory, broking and solutions
company that helps clients around the world turn risk into a path
for growth. The Company provides both specialized risk management
advisory, broking and consulting services on a global basis to
clients engaged in specific industrial and commercial activities,
and services to small, medium and large corporations through its
retail operations.


WILLIS TOWERS: Meriter Suit vs. TWDE Remains Pending in Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed by Meriter Health Services against a subsidiary
of Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company remains pending,
according to the Company's November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016.

On January 6, 2015, Meriter Health Services, Inc. ('Meriter'),
plan sponsor of the Meriter Health Services Employee Retirement
Plan (the 'Plan') filed a complaint in Wisconsin state court
against Towers Watson Delaware Inc. ('TWDE'), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, and against its former lawyers,
individual actuaries, and insurers.

In the Third Amended Complaint, served on April 12, 2016, Meriter
alleges that Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc. ('TPFC') and
Davis, Conder, Enderle & Sloan, Inc. ('DCES'), and other entities
and individuals, including Meriter's former lawyers, acted
negligently concerning the benefits consulting advice provided to
Meriter, including TPFC and the lawyers' involvement in the Plan
design and drafting of the Plan document in 1987 by TPFC, and DCES
and the lawyers' Plan review, Plan redesign, Plan amendment, and
drafting of ERISA section 204(h) notices in the early 2000s.
Additionally, Meriter asserts that TPFC, DCES, and the individual
actuary defendants breached alleged fiduciary duties to advise
Meriter regarding the competency of Meriter's then ERISA counsel.
Meriter also has asserted causes of action for contribution,
indemnity, and equitable subrogation related to amounts paid to
settle a class action lawsuit related to the Plan that was filed
by Plan participants against Meriter in 2010, alleging a number of
ERISA violations and related claims. Meriter settled that lawsuit
in 2015 for $82 million. Meriter seeks damages in the amount of
approximately $190 million, which includes amounts it claims to
have paid to settle and defend the class action litigation, and
amounts it claims to have incurred as a result of improper plan
design.  Meriter seeks to recover these alleged damages from TWDE
and the other defendants.

On January 12, 2016, TWDE and the other defendants filed a motion
for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of Meriter's
negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims. On April 18, 2016,
TWDE and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
contribution, indemnification, and equitable subrogation claims.
On May 4, 2016, the parties appeared for oral argument on the
motion for partial summary judgment, which the court granted in
part and denied in part.  The court dismissed the fiduciary duty
claims, but not the negligence claims. Meriter subsequently moved
for reconsideration of the dismissal of its breach of fiduciary
duty claims, which was denied as to TWDE on August 16, 2016. On
June 22, 2016, the court granted in part TWDE's motion to dismiss,
and dismissed the contribution and equitable subrogation claims,
but denied the motion as to Meriter's indemnification claim
without prejudice to the right of any defendant to raise the issue
again by later motion.

The Company said based on all of the information to date, and
given the stage of the matter, TWDE is currently unable to provide
an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. TWDE
disputes the allegations, and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.

                       About Willis Towers

Willis Towers Watson is a global advisory, broking and solutions
company that helps clients around the world turn risk into a path
for growth. The Company provides both specialized risk management
advisory, broking and consulting services on a global basis to
clients engaged in specific industrial and commercial activities,
and services to small, medium and large corporations through its
retail operations.


WILLIS TOWERS: Unit May Seek Summary Judgment in "Sanchez" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles has agreed that Towers Perrin may file a motion for
summary judgment in the lawsuit initiated by Elma Sanchez, et al.,
which will be heard on February 3, 2017, Willis Towers Watson
Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016,

On August 6, 2013, three individual plaintiffs (Elma Sanchez, et
al.) filed a putative class action suit against the California
Public Employees' Retirement System ('CalPERS') in Los Angeles
County Superior Court. On January 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, which added as defendants several members of
CalPERS' Board of Administration and three Legacy Towers Watson
entities, Towers Watson & Co., Towers Perrin, and Tillinghast-
Towers Perrin ('Towers Perrin').

Plaintiffs' claims all relate to a self-funded, non-profit Long
Term Care Program that CalPERS established in 1995 (the 'LTC
Program'). Plaintiffs' claims seek unspecified damages allegedly
resulting from CalPERS' 2012 decision to implement in 2015 and
2016 an 85 percent increase in the premium rates of certain of the
long term care policies it issued between 1995 and 2004 (the '85%
Increase').

The amended complaint alleges claims against CalPERS for breach of
contract and breach of fiduciary duty. It also includes a single
cause of action against Towers Perrin for professional negligence
relating to actuarial services Towers Perrin provided to CalPERS
relating to the LTC Program between 1995 and 2004.

Plaintiffs principally allege that CalPERS mismanaged the LTC
Program and its investment assets in multiple respects and
breached its contractual and fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and
other class members by impermissibly imposing the 85% Increase to
make up for investment losses. Plaintiffs also allege that Towers
Perrin recommended inadequate initial premium rates at the outset
of the LTC Program and used unspecified inappropriate assumptions
in its annual valuations for CalPERS. Plaintiffs claim that Towers
Perrin's allegedly negligent acts and omissions, prior to the end
of its retainer in 2004, contributed to the need for the 85%
Increase.

In May 2014, the court denied the motions to dismiss filed by
CalPERS and Towers Perrin addressed to the sufficiency of the
complaint. On January 28, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The certified class as currently
defined includes those long term care policy holders whose
policies were "subject to" the 85% Increase. The court thereafter
set an October 2, 2017 trial date.

In May 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. The
court has agreed that Towers Perrin may file a motion for summary
judgment which will be heard on February 3, 2017. The court has
also agreed to consider potential motions by Towers Perrin and
CalPERS to decertify or modify the class.

To date, the plaintiffs have not identified any amount of damages
or any basis for calculating damages they are seeking against
defendants, including Towers Perrin. For this reason and given the
stage of the proceedings, the Company is currently unable to
provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of
loss. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to continue
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

                       About Willis Towers

Willis Towers Watson is a global advisory, broking and solutions
company that helps clients around the world turn risk into a path
for growth. The Company provides both specialized risk management
advisory, broking and consulting services on a global basis to
clients engaged in specific industrial and commercial activities,
and services to small, medium and large corporations through its
retail operations.


YAHOO! INC: "Pawlik" Files Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
David Pawlik, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Yahoo!, Incorporated, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-09011 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2016), seeks redress
for Yahoo's unlawful and negligent disclosure of millions of
users' accounts, which included users' confidential personal
information, in violation of New York General Business Law and
common law.

The Defendant allegedly failed to fulfill its legal duty to
protect Yahoo users' personal identifying information (PII) which
was stored in its systems. Yahoo recklessly and negligently
disregarded is obligations to safeguard users' PII which resulted
in a massive data breach in late 2014.

Yahoo Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. Yahoo was founded by Jerry
Yang and David Filo in January 1994 and was incorporated on March
2, 1995.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP.
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298 3281
          Facsimile: (914) 908 6709
          E-mail: Jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                  gblankinship@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
          Wesley K. Polischuk, Esq.
          Genevieve R. Micek, Esq.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720 1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720 1292
          E-mail: drobinson@robinsonfirm.com
                  wpolischuk@robinsonfirm.com


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Awaits Final OK of "Reyes" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation is awaiting final approval of the settlement
agreement it entered into to resolve the class action case titled
Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et al., according to the
Company's November 7, 2016, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2016.

As of September 30, 2016, the Company said it is subject to a
class action case, Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et al.,
which was brought in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania in early 2010. This case relates
to payment processing services provided by Modern Payments, a
small subsidiary of Zions, to ten of its customers that allegedly
engaged in wrongful telemarketing practices. The plaintiff has
been seeking a trebled monetary award under the federal RICO Act.

During the second quarter of 2016, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the case for $37.50 million to
$37.75 million, (with the amount within that range dependent upon
the outcome of certain contingencies). A definitive settlement
agreement on those terms was executed by the parties and
preliminarily approved by the District Court in July 2016. The
settlement agreement is subject to further court process and final
approval by the District Court. These further steps are likely to
be finalized during the fourth quarter of 2016.

The Company said there can be no assurance that the settlement
agreement will ultimately be approved by the District Court or
become effective. The Company has fully reserved for its
obligations with respect to the settlement. A portion of the
settlement amount is covered by the Company's insurance policies
and has been funded by its insurers.


ZIPTAX LLC: Meyer Given Until Jan. 25 to Re-File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MELISSA MEYER V. ZIPTAX, LLC, Case No. 8:15-
cv-01555-CJC-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Cormac J. Carney entered an
order:

   1. granting in part stipulation to extend deadline to file
      motion for class certification; and

   2. denying without prejudice Plaintiff's pending motion for
      class certification.

Ms. Melissa Meyer brought this putative class action lawsuit on
October 31, 2016 against Ziptax, LLC, for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the
Court's scheduling order required Plaintiff to file by November
28, 2016. However, in the motion Plaintiff requested that the
Court "defer ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
until after the parties have had the opportunity to complete pre-
certification discovery".

The Court said, "Plaintiff explained that counsel for Defendant
had ceased communicating with Plaintiff's counsel for the past
month despite Plaintiff's counsel's e-mails, letters, and phone
calls, and had failed to respond to outstanding discovery
requests. In the motion Plaintiff also indicated her intent to
file an amended motion with information obtained during discovery
with leave of the Court. The Defendant did not file an opposition
to the motion. On November 15, 2016, the parties filed a
stipulation to extend Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in
support of the motion for class certification until January 9,
2017, and to move the hearing on the pending motion for class
certification to January 23, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in order to
"resolve a discovery dispute and finish receiving evidence
necessary for her motion for class certification, as well as
conduct further discussions with Counsel for Defendant about the
matter". The stipulation also asks the Court to extend Plaintiff's
deadline to file the Motion for Class Certification to January 25,
2017".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LX9Zb8yt


                            *********

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  * * *