CAR_Public/161205.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 5, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 242




                            Headlines

560 THIRD AVE: "Grullon" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
A1 SOLAR: Faces "Cardenas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ABBVIE INC: 760 Depakote Product Liability Claims Remain Pending
ABBVIE INC: Bid to Dismiss Sidney Hillman Class Suit Granted
ABBVIE INC: Continues to Defend Testosterone Replacement MDL

ABBVIE INC: Shire Securities Suit Remains Pending in Illinois
ABBVIE INC: Still Defends Medical Mutual & Allied Services Suits
ALTISOURCE ASSET: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Cambridge Suit
ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Toss "Martin" Suit
APOLLO COMMERCIAL: Merger-Related Class Suit Remains Pending

APPLE HOSPITALITY: Awaits February 7 Conference in "Moses" Suit
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Says DCG&T Settlement Did Not Impact Finances
ARC DOCUMENT: Paid $1-Mil. to Settle Labor Suit in California
AUDI AMERICA: "Greenfield" Suit Alleges Engine Emission Cover-up
AUDI AMERICA: Cheated on Emission Testing Per "Holcom" Suit

CARING PROFESSIONALS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: $75K Claim Filed on Behalf of "West" Suit Class
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Awaits Court Ruling in "Donelson" Class Suit
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Naylor Farms' Bid to Lift Stay
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: "Dodson" Plaintiffs Didn't File Proofs of Claim

CITGO PETROLEUM: Faces "Gottlieb" Suit in S.D. Florida
CITY IRONSMITH: "Shi" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
COOL EXPRESS: Faces "Zamora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COWLEY DISTRIBUTING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Scott" Suit Says
CRST VAN: Ninth Circuit Appeals Filed in "Segura" Class Suit

DC2 GROUP: Faces "Antoncecchi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ELEMENT GLOBAL: Faces "Khaimov" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
EMERGENT CAPITAL: Illinois Court Terminates "Jennings" Class Suit
FIESTA RESTAURANT: Units Settle Demand by Assistant Managers
FISHER HOMES: "Ayala" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA

FLORIDA, USA: Cunningham Appeals M.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Cir.
GENPACT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Alderman" Suit Claims
GEORGIA MEDICAL: "Sheats" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
GOPRO INC: "Bielousov" Sues Over Non-Disclosure, Drop in Shares
H&R BLOCK: Perras Appeals W.D. Missouri Ruling to Eight Circuit

HAILEY DEVELOPMENT: Faces Windham Suit Over Breach of Contract
HARDWOOD FLOORING: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims
HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Appeals Ruling in "Mackall" Suit to 9th Cir.
HERTZ CORP: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hecht" Class Suit
HMJ PLASTERING: "Jackson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

HORIZON PHARMA: Continues to Defend "Schaffer" Suit in N.Y.
HORIZON PHARMA: Faces 2 Suits Over Acquisition of Raptor Pharma
IL PORTO BRICK: "Liz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
KALAMOTI INC: Faces "Vargas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Appeals Cert. of Classes in "Shahinian" Suit

KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: LaCross Appeals Ruling in Suit v. USDC-AZP
KOHLBERG VENTURES: Faces "Wojciechowski" Suit in N.D. Cal.
LANDRY'S INC: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Break
LEASING ENTERPRISES: Shaffer Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage Under FLSA
LENDMARK FINANCIAL: Faces "Crumpton" Class Suit in N.D. Alabama

LINDE LLC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Hobson" Class Suit
LIVE NATION: Has Accrued $14.8MM for Costs in Ticketing Suit Deal
MAJOR LEAGUE: Payne Appeals Decision in Suit Over Safety Netting
MATCH GROUP: Defends Consolidated IPO-Related Suit in N.D. Texas
MCKESSON CORP: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in True Health Class Suit

MERCURY CASUALTY: Sued in Cal. Over Depreciation Method Policies
MHNB INC: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Shelby" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
MORTON COUNTY: "Dundon" Alleges Illegal Crowd Dispersion
MOUNT SINAI: "Latner" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York

NATIONAL INTERSTATE: Signs MOU to Settle "Solak" Suit Over Merger
NEIMAN MARCUS: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Order in "Attia" Suit
NOBILIS HEALTH: Court Dismisses "Schott" Securities Class Suit
NOBILIS HEALTH: Defends "Capelli" Securities Class Suit in Canada
NORTH SHORE: "Collymore" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

NOVARTIS PHARMA: Restrains Gleevec Availability, Suit Says
NRA GROUP: Faces "Kennedy" Suit in Middle Dist. of Pennsylvania
NUTS.COM: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, "Garay" Suit Claims
OK FOODS: Seeks Eighth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Cato" Suit
ON DECK CAPITAL: IPO-Related Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Filing of Brief in "Colley" Suit
PACIFIC COAST: Final Hearing on "Welch" Suit Deal Set for March 2
PETROQUEST ENERGY: "Lee" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma
PETSMART INC: "Smadja" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
POWERSCOUT INC: Faces "Stacy" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.

RAWLINGS CO: Wurtz Appeals E.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
RAZZLE DAZZLE: "Romero" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
RELIABLE PAPER: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Suit Claims
REPUBLIC SERVICES: "Taylor" Suit Moved from D. Ariz. to S.D. Tex.
RESORT EXPRESS: Brueningsen Appeals D. Utah Ruling to 10th Cir.

RGS FINANCIAL: Faces "Lebovitch" Suit in E.D. of New York
RINGCENTRAL INC: Supply Pro Amends Complaint in TCPA Class Suit
RITMO LATINO: Faces "Ballesteros" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RITZ CARLTON: Faces "Vizcaino" Suit in New York Supreme Court
S-L DISTRIBUTION: Faces Jonathan Scheurer Suit in D. New Jersey

SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Oklahoma Court Reopens Lanier Trust Suit
SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Fritchman Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
SELIP & STYLIANOU: Faces "Warman" Suit in E.D. of New York
SETON FAMILY: Faces "Stepp" Suit Over Unpaid Compensation
SHIRE LLC: Faces "Picone" Suit in Mass. Over Guanfacine

SHIRE LLC: Faces "Richard" Suit in Fla. Over Guanfacine
SPEEDWAY LLC: Faces "Teggerdine" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
SQUARE INC: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "White" Civil Rights Suit
TARGET CORP: Rojas Appeals From C.D California Ruling to 9th Cir.
TELENAV INC: Defends "Gergetz" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA

TENET HEALTHCARE: "Pennington" Suit Moved from Cal. to N.D. Tex.
TESORO REFINING: Faces "Soratorio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
THERANOS INC: "Colman" Action Alleges Securities Fraud
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Katz" Suit Says
TRI-STATE WATER: Home Depot Appeals Decision in "Bauer" Suit

TWILIO INC: Discovery in "Flowers" Privacy Class Suit Ongoing
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Plans to Seek Rehearing in Securities Suit
UNIFIED GROCERS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Rabbiner" Suit Over Coinsurance Payment
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Watson" Suit Over Coinsurance Payment

UNITED STATES: Sued in Fla. Over Improper Charges of PACER Access
UNITED STATES: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Johnson" Class Suit
US SECURITY: Faces "Woodall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Roberts" Suit
WELLS FARGO: "Weingarten" Suit Seeks Back Wages Under FLSA

WELLS FARGO: McDonald Appeals From W.D. Pa. Ruling to 3rd Circuit
YAKIM JORDAN: Faces "Peacock" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Stern" Suit in E.D. of New York




                            *********


560 THIRD AVE: "Grullon" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leonero Grullon, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, v. 560 Third Avenue Grocery Corp. D/B/A
Duke's, 239 Park Avenue South Associates, LLC D/B/A Big Dadd's,
Big Daddy's II LLC D/B/A Big Daddy's, John Doe Corp. D/B/A City
Crab Shack, Dean Palin, Simon Oren, Andrew W. Silverman and Gerald
J. Shallo, Case No. 1:16-cv-09190 (S.D. N.Y., November 28, 2016),
seeks unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due to time-shaving,
liquidated damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Laws.

Defendants operate a chain of restaurants under the trade names,
"Duke's" located at 560 3rd Avenue, New York, NY 10016, "Big
Daddy's" located at 239 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10003 and
1596 2nd Avenue, New York, NY 10028 and "City Crab Shack" located
at 10E 16th Street, New York, NY 10003, where Dean Palin is the
founder, owner and Chief Executive Officer.

Grullon was hired by Defendants to work as a dishwasher for
"Duke's" at 560 3rd Avenue, New York, NY 10016. Plaintiff worked
until in or about March 2013. He claims to have been denied
overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


A1 SOLAR: Faces "Cardenas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
James Cardenas, individually and all others similarly situated v.
A1 Solar Power, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
BC641778 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 23, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

A1 Solar Power, Inc. is a residential and commercial solar
contractor that offers a comprehensive array of solar energy
systems for residential and commercial uses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Hawkins, Esq.
      Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
      9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 387-7200
      Facsimile: (949)387-6676
      E-mail: iames@iameshawldnsaplc.com
              christina@iameshawkinsaplc.com


ABBVIE INC: 760 Depakote Product Liability Claims Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of lawsuits over alleged injuries arising from use of
Depakote remain pending, AbbVie 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.

Product liability cases are pending in which plaintiffs generally
allege that AbbVie did not adequately warn about risk of certain
injuries, primarily various birth defects, arising from use of
Depakote. Over ninety percent of the approximately 760 claims are
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, and the rest are pending in various other
federal and state courts. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages.

AbbVie Inc. is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories.
AbbVie's products are focused on treating conditions, such as
chronic autoimmune diseases in rheumatology, gastroenterology and
dermatology; oncology, including blood cancers; virology,
including hepatitis C (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV); neurological disorders, such as Parkinson's disease and
multiple sclerosis; metabolic diseases, including thyroid disease
and complications associated with cystic fibrosis; as well as
other serious health conditions.


ABBVIE INC: Bid to Dismiss Sidney Hillman Class Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc.'s motion to dismiss, without prejudice, the purported
class action lawsuit commenced by Sidney Hillman Health Center of
Rochester, et al., was granted, 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.

In August 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman
Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was
filed against AbbVie in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by three healthcare benefit
providers alleging violations of Federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes and state deceptive business
practice and unjust enrichment laws in connection with
reimbursements for certain uses of Depakote from 1998 to 2012.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or equitable relief and
attorneys' fees. In June 2016, the court granted AbbVie's motion
to dismiss, without prejudice.

AbbVie Inc. is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories.
AbbVie's products are focused on treating conditions, such as
chronic autoimmune diseases in rheumatology, gastroenterology and
dermatology; oncology, including blood cancers; virology,
including hepatitis C (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV); neurological disorders, such as Parkinson's disease and
multiple sclerosis; metabolic diseases, including thyroid disease
and complications associated with cystic fibrosis; as well as
other serious health conditions.


ABBVIE INC: Continues to Defend Testosterone Replacement MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. continues to defend a multidistrict litigation against
manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies, 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.

Product liability cases are pending in which plaintiffs generally
allege that AbbVie and other manufacturers of testosterone
replacement therapies did not adequately warn about risks of
certain injuries, primarily heart attacks, strokes and blood
clots. Approximately 3,770 claims are consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under the MDL Rules as In re: Testosterone
Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545.
Approximately 205 claims are pending in various state courts.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

AbbVie Inc. is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories.
AbbVie's products are focused on treating conditions, such as
chronic autoimmune diseases in rheumatology, gastroenterology and
dermatology; oncology, including blood cancers; virology,
including hepatitis C (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV); neurological disorders, such as Parkinson's disease and
multiple sclerosis; metabolic diseases, including thyroid disease
and complications associated with cystic fibrosis; as well as
other serious health conditions.


ABBVIE INC: Shire Securities Suit Remains Pending in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie 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 lawsuit filed on behalf of
purchasers and sellers of certain Shire plc securities remains
pending.

In November 2014, five individuals filed a putative class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers and sellers of certain Shire plc
(Shire) securities between June 20 and October 14, 2014, against
AbbVie and its chief executive officer in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that
the defendants made and/or are responsible for material
misstatements in violation of federal securities laws in
connection with AbbVie's proposed transaction with Shire. In March
2016, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. In May 2016,
four individuals filed an amended complaint in the case.

AbbVie Inc. is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories.
AbbVie's products are focused on treating conditions, such as
chronic autoimmune diseases in rheumatology, gastroenterology and
dermatology; oncology, including blood cancers; virology,
including hepatitis C (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV); neurological disorders, such as Parkinson's disease and
multiple sclerosis; metabolic diseases, including thyroid disease
and complications associated with cystic fibrosis; as well as
other serious health conditions.


ABBVIE INC: Still Defends Medical Mutual & Allied Services Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. continues to defend two lawsuits brought against
manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies, 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.

In November 2014, a putative class action lawsuit, Medical Mutual
of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against several
manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs),
including AbbVie, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all insurance
companies, health benefit providers, and other third party payors
who paid for TRTs, including AndroGel. The claims asserted include
violations of the federal RICO Act and state consumer fraud and
deceptive trade practices laws. The complaint seeks monetary
damages and injunctive relief.

A similar lawsuit, Allied Services Division Welfare Fund v. AbbVie
Inc., et al., was filed in the same court in October 2015 on
behalf of the same putative class members and a putative class of
consumers.

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

AbbVie Inc. is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories.
AbbVie's products are focused on treating conditions, such as
chronic autoimmune diseases in rheumatology, gastroenterology and
dermatology; oncology, including blood cancers; virology,
including hepatitis C (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV); neurological disorders, such as Parkinson's disease and
multiple sclerosis; metabolic diseases, including thyroid disease
and complications associated with cystic fibrosis; as well as
other serious health conditions.


ALTISOURCE ASSET: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Cambridge Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Asset Management Corporation is still awaiting the
court's decision on motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled City of
Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp.,
et al., 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 January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin
Islands by a purported shareholder of AAMC under the caption City
of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management
Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004. The action names as defendants AAMC,
William Charles Erbey and certain officers of AAMC and alleges
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose material information to AAMC shareholders concerning
alleged conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with respect to
AAMC's relationship and transactions with Residential, Altisource,
Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., Southwest Business
Corporation, NewSource Reinsurance Company and Ocwen, including
allegations that the defendants failed to disclose (i) the nature
of relationships between Mr. Erbey, AAMC and those entities; and
(ii) that the transactions were the result of an allegedly unfair
process from which Mr. Erbey failed to recuse himself. The action
seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the
putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's
and other fees and expenses. AAMC and Mr. Erbey are the only
defendants who have been served with the complaint.

On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of
Denver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff. On
May 15, 2015, the court entered a scheduling order requiring
plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before June 19, 2015,
and setting a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2015. On
July 20, 2015, AAMC and Mr. Erbey filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed
on September 3, 2015, and the Company is awaiting a decision from
the court on the motion.

The Company believes the amended complaint is without merit. At
this time, the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome
of this matter, nor can it estimate the range of possible loss, if
any.

Altisource Asset Management Corporation provides asset management
and certain corporate governance services to institutional
investors.  The Company's primary client currently is Altisource
Residential Corporation, a public real estate investment trust.


ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Toss "Martin" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Residential Corporation awaits ruling on the
Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims in the action styled
Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 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 March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin
Islands by a purported shareholder of the Company under the
caption Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-
cv-00024. The action names as defendants the Company, William
Charles Erbey and certain officers and a former officer of the
Company and alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by, among other things, making materially false
statements and/or failing to disclose material information to the
Company's shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and
transactions with Altisource Asset Management Corporation, Ocwen
and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. These alleged
misstatements and omissions include allegations that the
defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance on
Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen,
including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans,
that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating
state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen's
lack of proper internal controls. The complaint also contains
allegations that certain of the Company's disclosure documents
were false and misleading because they failed to disclose fully
the entire details of a certain asset management agreement between
the Company and AAMC that allegedly benefited AAMC to the
detriment of the Company's shareholders. The action seeks, among
other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class
in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other fees
and expenses.

In May 2015, two of the Company's purported shareholders filed
competing motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff
and for selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently,
opposition and reply briefs were filed by the purported
shareholders with respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015,
the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be
lead plaintiff and denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff.

On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.

On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims
in the action. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on May 20,
2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the action. At this time, the Company is not
able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can it
estimate the range of possible loss, if any.

Altisource Residential Corporation is a Maryland real estate
investment trust focused on acquiring, owning and managing single-
family rental properties throughout the United States.  The
Company conducts substantially all of its activities through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Altisource Residential, L.P., and its
subsidiaries.


APOLLO COMMERCIAL: Merger-Related Class Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated merger-related litigation remains pending in
Maryland, according to Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance,
Inc.'s Form 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 7, 2016.

On August 31, 2016, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 26, 2016 (as amended,
the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Apollo Commercial Real
Estate Finance, Inc. (the "Company"), Apollo Residential Mortgage,
Inc., a Maryland corporation ("AMTG"), and Arrow Merger Sub, Inc.,
a Maryland corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company
("Merger Sub"), AMTG merged with and into the Company, with the
Company continuing as the surviving entity in the merger (the
"Merger").

After the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement,
two putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed First
Merger (as defined in the Merger Agreement), captioned Aivasian v.
Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001532 and
Wiener v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-
001837, were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (or,
the Court). A putative class and derivative lawsuit was later
filed in the Court captioned Crago v. Apollo Residential Mortgage,
Inc., No. 24-C-16-002610.

Following a hearing on May 6, 2016, the Court entered orders among
other things, consolidating the three actions under the caption In
Re Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case
No.: 24-C-16-002610. The plaintiffs have designated the Crago
complaint as the operative complaint. The operative complaint
includes both direct and derivative claims, names as defendants
the Company, the Board, Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance,
Inc. (or, ARI), Arrow Merger Sub, Inc. (or, Merger Sub), Apollo
and Athene Holdings LTD. (or, Athene) and alleges, among other
things, that the members of the Board breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders and that the other corporate
defendants aided and abetted such fiduciary breaches. The
operative complaint further alleges, among other things, that the
proposed First Merger involves inadequate consideration, was the
result of an inadequate and conflicted sales process, and includes
unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude
competing offers. It also alleges that the transactions with
Athene are unfair and that the registration statement on Form S-4
filed with the SEC on April 6, 2016 contains materially misleading
disclosures and omits certain material information. The operative
complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the proposed
class, declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief, including enjoining or rescinding the First Merger,
unspecified damages, and an award of other unspecified attorneys'
and other fees and costs.

On May 6, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the Court a
stipulation seeking the appointment of interim co-lead counsel,
which stipulation was approved by the Court on June 9, 2016.

The defendants believe that the claims asserted in the complaints
are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Awaits February 7 Conference in "Moses" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., awaits initial conference scheduled
for February 7, 2017, in the lawsuit initiated by Susan Moses,
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.

As previously reported in the 2015 Form 10-K, on April 22, 2014,
Plaintiff Susan Moses, purportedly a shareholder of Apple REIT
Seven, Inc. ("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc. ("Apple
Eight"), now part of the Company, filed a class action against the
Company and several individual directors on behalf of all then-
existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple Seven and
Apple Eight, now part of the Company, who purchased additional
shares under the Apple REITs' Dividend Reinvestment Plans ("DRIP")
between July 17, 2007 and February 12, 2014 (Susan Moses, et al.
v. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al., 14-CV-3131 (DLI)(SMG)).

On March 9, 2015, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order
dismissing all claims.  On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint asserting a breach of contract
claim.  Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on April 29, 2015 and briefing on the motion was completed on May
27, 2015. On September 30, 2016, the Court denied defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the breach of contract claim and dismissed the
claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. Defendants filed their Answer on Oct. 14, 2016 and an
initial conference is scheduled for February 7, 2017.

The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to defend this case vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., is a Virginia corporation that has
elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust for
federal income tax purposes.  The Company is a self-advised REIT
that invests in income-producing real estate, primarily in the
lodging sector, in the United States.  As of September 30, 2016,
the Company owned 236 hotels with an aggregate of 30,299 rooms
located in 33 states.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Says DCG&T Settlement Did Not Impact Finances
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, 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 settlement in
the lawsuit filed by DCG&T, et al., has been effectuated and did
not impact the Company's financial position.

As previously reported in the 2015 Form 10-K, on January 31, 2014,
two shareholders of the Company commenced a purported class action
against the Company and its directors (the "Defendants") in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(DCG&T, et al. v. Knight, et al., No. 3:14cv67, E.D. Va.).

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims
that remained and the Court approved the settlement by order dated
September 15, 2015 (the "Order").  The settlement is among the
remaining Defendants (the former Apple REIT Nine, Inc. board of
directors) and certain former Apple REIT Nine, Inc. shareholders
and does not directly involve the Company.  A former shareholder
who objected to the settlement appealed the Order approving the
settlement to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and plaintiffs
cross-appealed the former shareholder's standing to object to the
settlement.  On May 13, 2016, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the
former shareholder's appeal and the time period to appeal that
dismissal has now passed.  The settlement was subsequently
effectuated and did not impact the Company's financial position.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., is a Virginia corporation that has
elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust for
federal income tax purposes.  The Company is a self-advised REIT
that invests in income-producing real estate, primarily in the
lodging sector, in the United States.  As of September 30, 2016,
the Company owned 236 hotels with an aggregate of 30,299 rooms
located in 33 states.


ARC DOCUMENT: Paid $1-Mil. to Settle Labor Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARC Document Solutions, 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 settled the
lawsuit commenced by a former employee and paid $1 million.

On October 21, 2010, a former employee, individually and on behalf
of a purported class consisting of all non-exempt employees who
work or worked for American Reprographics Company, L.L.C. and
American Reprographics Company in the State of California at any
time from October 21, 2006 through the settlement date, filed an
action against the Company in the Superior Court of California for
the County of Orange. The complaint alleged, among other things,
that the Company violated the California Labor Code by failing to
(i) provide meal and rest periods, or compensation in lieu
thereof, (ii) timely pay wages due at termination, and (iii) that
those practices also violate the California Business and
Professions Code. The relief sought included damages, restitution,
penalties, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such other
relief as the court deems proper.

On March 15, 2013, the Company participated in a private mediation
session with claimants' counsel which did not result in resolution
of the claim. Subsequent to the mediation session, the mediator
issued a proposal that was accepted by both parties.

In the second quarter of 2016, the Company settled with the
defendants and paid $1.0 million, which had been accrued as of
December 31, 2015.

ARC Document Solutions, Inc., is a leading document solutions
provider to architectural, engineering, construction, and
facilities management professionals, while also providing document
solutions to businesses of all types.  ARC offers a variety of
services including: Construction Document Information Management,
Managed Print Services, and Archive and Information Management.
In addition, ARC also sells Equipment and Supplies. The Company
conducts its operations through its wholly-owned operating
subsidiary, ARC Document Solutions, LLC, a Texas limited liability
company, and its affiliates.


AUDI AMERICA: "Greenfield" Suit Alleges Engine Emission Cover-up
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Greenfield and Paul Sherry, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Audi of America, LLC
and Audi AG, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-12304 (D. Mass.,
November 16, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief in the form of a recall or replacement of affected vehicles
as well as costs, restitution, damages, disgorgement and penalties
and other relief for breach of warranties of implied warranty,
fraudulent concealment and violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act as
well as unfair and deceptive trade practices act of various states
and the District of Columbia.

The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in
their gasoline engine called a defeat device that allegedly turns
on the emission controls during mandated testing but turns it off
during regular operations thus rendering it non-compliant to
emission standards set by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board.

Audi AG is an automotive company organized and existing under
German law, with its principal place of business in Ingolstadt,
Germany. Audi of America, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business located at 2200
Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171. Audi America is
a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of Audi AG.

Greenfield leased a new 2015 Audi A8L from Audi Westwood in
Westwood, MA, while Sherry purchased a used 2014 Audi A6 from Herb
Chambers in Boston, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Sean R. Matt, Esq.
      Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
             sean@hbsslaw.com
             toml@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

      Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      Tel: (617) 482-3700
      Fax: (617) 482-3003
      Email: kristenj@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

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


AUDI AMERICA: Cheated on Emission Testing Per "Holcom" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Monica and Bruce Holcomb, Ted Schrubbe, Geert Wenes, Brian
Perelmuter, Jason Capizzi, Ralph May, William Barrois, Curtis
Hurst, and Jared Standiford, Plaintiff, v. Audi of America, LLC
and Audi AG, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06648 (N.D. Cal.,
November 16, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief in the form of a recall or replacement of affected vehicles
as well as costs, restitution, damages, disgorgement and penalties
and other relief for breach of warranties of implied warranty,
fraudulent concealment and violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, as well unfair
and deceptive trade practices acts of various states and the
District of Columbia.

The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in
their gasoline engine called a defeat device that allegedly turns
on the emission controls during mandated testing but turns it off
during regular operations thus rendering it non-compliant to
emission standards set by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board.

Plaintiffs are owners of Audi vehicles containing such defect.

Audi AG is an automotive company organized and existing under
German law, with its principal place of business in Ingolstadt,
Germany. Audi of America, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business located at 2200
Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171. Audi America is
a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of Audi AG.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roland Tellis, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: 818.839.2333
      Facsimile: 818.986.9698
      E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com

              - and -

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: 973.994.1700
      Facsimile: 973.994.1744
      E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

              - and -

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water Street New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: 212.584.0700
      Facsimile: 212.584.0799
      E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

              - and -

      David Boies, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      333 Main Street
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Telephone: 914.749.8200
      Facsimile: 914.749.8300
      E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

              - and -

      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: 415.956.1000
      Facsimile: 415.956.1008
      E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com

              - and -

      David S. Stellings, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013-1413
      Telephone: 212.355.9500
      Facsimile: 212.355.9592
      E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com

              - and -

      Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE, LLC
      28 Bridgeside Blvd.
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: 843.216.9000
      Facsimile: 843.216.9450
      E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com

              - and -

      Paul J. Geller, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: 561.750.3000
      Facsimile: 561.750.3364
      E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com


CARING PROFESSIONALS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lyudmyla Konstantynovska, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated who were employed by Caring
Professionals, Inc. v. Caring Professionals, Inc., Case No.
159883/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 23, 2016), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week.

Caring Professionals, Inc. is engaged in providing nursing and
home health aide services at the residences of its clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: $75K Claim Filed on Behalf of "West" Suit Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Lisa West
and Stormy Hopson, individually and as class representatives on
behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy,
L.L.C., filed a claim on behalf of the putative class claiming in
excess of $75,000 in Chaparral Energy, Inc.'s Chapter 11 cases,
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.

The Company said: "On February 18, 2016, an alleged class action
was filed against us, as well as several other operators in the
District Court of Pottawatomie County, State of Oklahoma ("West
Case"), alleging claims on behalf of named plaintiffs and all
similarly situated persons having an insurable real property
interest in Cleveland, Lincoln, McClain, Okfuskee, Oklahoma,
Pontotoc, Pottawatomie and Seminole Counties, Oklahoma (the "Class
Area"). The plaintiffs allege the oil and gas operations conducted
by us and the other defendants have induced or triggered
earthquakes in the Class Area. The plaintiffs are asking the court
to require the defendants to reimburse plaintiffs and class
members for earthquake insurance premiums from 2011 through a
future date defined as the time at which the court determines
there is no longer a risk that our activities induce or trigger
earthquakes, as well as attorney fees and costs and other relief.
The plaintiffs have not asked for damages related to actual
property damage which may have occurred. We have responded to the
petition, denied the allegations and raised a number of
affirmative defenses. At this time, a class has not been certified
and discovery has not yet commenced."

"On March 18, 2016, the case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). On May 20, 2016, we filed a
Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy, informing the court that we
had filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code."

"On October 14, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
adding additional defendants and increasing the Class Area to 25
Central Oklahoma counties. Although we are named as a defendant,
the Amended Complaint expressly limits its claims against us to
those asserted in the original petition unless and until the
automatic stay is lifted. Plaintiffs' attorneys filed a proof of
claim on behalf of the putative class claiming in excess of
$75,000 in our Chapter 11 Cases."

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' claims, disputes that the
case meets the requirements for a class action, disputes the
remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and is
vigorously defending the case.

Chaparral Energy, Inc., and its subsidiaries, are involved in the
acquisition, exploration, development, production and operation of
oil and natural gas properties.  The Company's properties are
located primarily in Oklahoma and Texas.  The Company is currently
operating its business as debtor in possession in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Awaits Court Ruling in "Donelson" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc., awaits ruling with respect to its filing
of Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy informing the Court in the
lawsuit captioned Martha Donelson and John Friend, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., of the Company's filing of voluntary
bankruptcy petitions, 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.

The Company said: "On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action was
filed against us, as well as several other operators in Osage
County, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, alleging claims on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all similarly situated Osage County land owners and
surface lessees. The plaintiffs challenged leases and drilling
permits approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs without the
environmental studies required under the National Environmental
Protection (NEPA). The plaintiffs assert claims seeking recovery
for trespass, nuisance, negligence and unjust enrichment. Relief
sought includes declaring oil and natural gas leases and drilling
permits obtained in Osage County without a prior NEPA study void
ab initio, removing us from all properties owned by the class
members, disgorgement of profits, and compensatory and punitive
damages."

"On March 31, 2016, the Court dismissed the case against the
federal agencies named as defendants, and therefore against all
defendants, as an improper challenge under NEPA and the
Administrative Procedures Act. On April 29, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to alter or amend the court's opinion and vacate
the judgment, arguing the court does have jurisdiction to hear the
claims and dismissal of the federal defendants does not require
dismissal of the oil company defendants. The plaintiffs also filed
a motion to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies
which the court found in the dismissed complaint. Several
defendants have filed briefs objecting to plaintiffs' motions."

"On May 20, 2016, the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy, informing the court that we had filed voluntary
petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code, and has not responded to the plaintiffs' motions.
The court has not yet ruled. As the plaintiffs in the Donelson
case did not file proofs of claim either for the putative class or
the putative class representatives, we anticipate any monetary
liability related to this claim will be discharged."

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' allegations and disputes that
the case meets the requirements for a class action.

Chaparral Energy, Inc., and its subsidiaries, are involved in the
acquisition, exploration, development, production and operation of
oil and natural gas properties.  The Company's properties are
located primarily in Oklahoma and Texas.  The Company is currently
operating its business as debtor in possession in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Naylor Farms' Bid to Lift Stay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, 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 awaits a court
ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion to lift the automatic stay
regarding the pending motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit
titled Naylor Farms, Inc., individually and as class
representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

The Company said: "On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was
filed against us in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma ("Naylor Farms Case") alleging that
we improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid
to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners as categorized in
the petition from crude oil and natural gas wells located in
Oklahoma. The purported class includes non-governmental royalty
interest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in
Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims,
including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek termination of
leases, recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive
damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. We have
responded to the Naylor Farms petition, denied the allegations and
raised arguments and defenses. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in October 2015. In addition, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for summary judgment asking the court to determine as a
matter of law that natural gas is not marketable until it is in
the condition and location to enter an interstate pipeline.
Responsive briefs to both motions were filed in the fourth quarter
of 2015. The court has not ruled on the motions, and no hearing
has been scheduled."

"On May 20, 2016, we filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy,
informing the court that we had filed voluntary petitions for
relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. In
response, on May 23, 2016, the court issued an order
administratively closing the case, subject to reopening depending
on the disposition of the bankruptcy proceedings."

"On July 22, 2016, attorneys for the putative class filed a motion
in the Bankruptcy Court asking the court to lift the automatic
stay and allow the case to proceed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. We did not object to
lifting the automatic stay with regard to this case for the
limited purpose of allowing the District Court to rule on the
pending motion for class certification, and the class
certification issue is under consideration by the trial judge in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma. The plaintiffs' motion to lift the automatic stay
regarding the pending motion for summary judgment is pending in
the Bankruptcy Court and is scheduled for a hearing on Nov. 22,
2016. The plaintiffs have indicated, if the class is certified,
they seek damages in excess of $5,000 which may increase with the
passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of
interest. In addition to filing claims on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and associated parties, plaintiffs' attorneys filed a
proof of claim on behalf of the putative class claiming in excess
of $150,000 in our Chapter 11 Cases."

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' allegations, disputes the
case meets the requirements for class certification, and
anticipates objecting to the claims.

Chaparral Energy, Inc., and its subsidiaries, are involved in the
acquisition, exploration, development, production and operation of
oil and natural gas properties.  The Company's properties are
located primarily in Oklahoma and Texas.  The Company is currently
operating its business as debtor in possession in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: "Dodson" Plaintiffs Didn't File Proofs of Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, 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 Plaintiffs in
the lawsuit captioned Amanda Dodson, individually and as class
representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., did not file proofs of claim either for
the putative class or the putative class representative.

The Company said: "On May 10, 2013, Amanda Dodson, filed a
complaint against us in the District Court of Mayes County,
Oklahoma, ("Dodson Case") with an allegation similar to those
asserted in the Naylor Farms case related to post-production
deductions, and include claims for breach of contract, fraud,
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and
seek termination of leases, recovery of compensatory damages,
interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the
alleged class. The alleged class includes non-governmental royalty
interest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in
Oklahoma. We have responded to the Dodson petition, denied the
allegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses. At the
time we filed our Bankruptcy Petitions, a class had not been
certified and discovery had not yet commenced. As the plaintiffs
in the Dodson case did not file proofs of claim either for the
putative class or the putative class representative, we anticipate
any liability related to this claim will be discharged."

Chaparral Energy, Inc., and its subsidiaries, are involved in the
acquisition, exploration, development, production and operation of
oil and natural gas properties.  The Company's properties are
located primarily in Oklahoma and Texas.  The Company is currently
operating its business as debtor in possession in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.


CITGO PETROLEUM: Faces "Gottlieb" Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citgo Petroleum
Corporation. The case is captioned Matthew Gottlieb, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Citgo Petroleum Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-
81911-RLR (S.D. Fla., Nov. 23, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.

Citgo Petroleum is an American refiner, transporter and marketer
of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals and other
industrial products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          1399 SW 1st. Ave. Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (404) 797 9696

               - and -

          Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
          Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq.
          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 625
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 529 8858
          E-mail: akaufman@kolawyers.com
                  ostrow@kolawyers.com


CITY IRONSMITH: "Shi" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Shi Yang Li, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. City Ironsmith Corp., Yuan
Xiu a.k.a Charlie Li and Jane (First Name Unknown) Chen, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06520 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2016),
seeks to recover owed overtime wages and other monies pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the New York Labor Law
(NYLL).

The Defendants have systematically ignored the requirements of the
FLSA and NYLL by failing to pay Plaintiff owed overtime pay.

City Ironsmith provides professional contracting service in steel
structure erection and framing for commercial industrial and
warehouse building projects. It also offers iron work for all
kinds of steel stairs, railing, fence, and fire escape.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


COOL EXPRESS: Faces "Zamora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Antonio Pineda Zamora and all others similarly situated
v. Cool Express, LLC, Juan David Bernal, and Viviana Segura, Case
No. 1:16-cv-24896-MGC (S.D. Fla., November 23, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a transportation company in Dade County,
Florida.

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

COWLEY DISTRIBUTING: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Scott" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy James Scott Sr., on behalf of himself and others v. Cowley
Distributing, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-04307-MJW (W.D. Miss.,
November 23, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 for
each workweek.

Cowley Distributing, Inc. is a Missouri corporation that provides
wholesale magazine and book distributing services to retail
clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
      DONELON, PC
      Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MN 64112
      Telephone: (816) 221-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
      E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com

         - and -

      Daniel W. Craig, Esq.
      6614 Clayton Road, #320
      St. Louis, MN 63117
      Telephone: (314) 297-8385
      Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
      E-mail: dan@donelonpc.com


CRST VAN: Ninth Circuit Appeals Filed in "Segura" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto E. Galan Segura filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Roberto Segura v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., et
al., Case No. 5:12-cv-01901-TJH-SP, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Riverside.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Roberto Segura v. CRST Van
Expedited, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-56708, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 14, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on March 14, 2017;

   -- Appellant Roberto E Galan Segura's opening brief is due on
      April 24, 2017;

   -- Appellees CRST Van Expedited, Inc. and Does' answering
      brief is due on May 23, 2017;

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERTO E. GALAN SEGURA, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated current and former
employees of Defendants in the State of California, is represented
by:

          Michele L. Jackson, Esq.
          MICHELE L. JACKSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          19200 Von Kaman Avenue
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Business: 949/622-5595
          Telephone: (949) 622-5595
          Facsimile: (949) 622-5598
          E-mail: mjackson@michelejacksonlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee CRST VAN EXPEDITED, INC., an Iowa Corporation,
is represented by:

          James Harold Hanson, Esq.
          R. Jay Taylor, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          10 West Market Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 492-9205
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: jhanson@scopelitis.com
                  jtaylor@scopelitis.com

               - and -

          Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-4700
          E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com


DC2 GROUP: Faces "Antoncecchi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Antoncecchi, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. DC2 Group Inc. d/b/a DC Group - When Power Is
Critical, Case No. BC642184 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 29, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Law.

DC2 Group Inc. provides reliable uninterruptible power supply
(UPS) backup power service and maintenance to clients throughout
the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      One Embarcadero Center
      38th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (941) 638-8800
      Facsimile: (347)390-2187
      E-mail: isagafi@outtengolden.com

         - and -

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Avenue, 16th Floor
      Post Office Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3341
      E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


ELEMENT GLOBAL: Faces "Khaimov" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Element Global
Services, Inc. The case is captioned Marina Khaimov, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Element Global Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06551 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2016).

Element Global is doing business in the accounts receivables
Industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EMERGENT CAPITAL: Illinois Court Terminates "Jennings" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court terminated the purported class action lawsuit filed by
Kenneth Jennings against Emergent Capital, Inc., the 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.

A complaint was filed against the Company's subsidiary, styled
Kenneth Jennings v. Washington Square Financial, LLC d/b/a
Imperial Structured Settlements ("Washington Square"), and was
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The plaintiff sought, in a purported class
action, to represent all individuals who sold all or a part of a
structured settlement annuity to Washington Square under the
Illinois Structured Settlement Protections Act (the "Illinois
Act"), where the underlying annuity contract contained an anti-
assignment clause, and where a court issued an order under the
Illinois Act approving the transaction. The complaint sought,
among other things, a declaration that all such transactions are
void and compensatory and punitive damages.

On September 28, 2016, the District Court terminated the case
pursuant to a notice of voluntary dismissal, without prejudice,
which had been filed by the plaintiff.

Incorporated in Florida, Emergent Capital, Inc., through its
subsidiary companies, owns a portfolio of 623 life insurance
policies, also referred to as life settlements, with a fair value
of $483.4 million and an aggregate death benefit of approximately
$3.0 billion at September 30, 2016.  The Company primarily earns
income on these policies from changes in their fair value and
through death benefits.


FIESTA RESTAURANT: Units Settle Demand by Assistant Managers
------------------------------------------------------------
Fiesta Restaurant 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 its
subsidiaries reached a settlement with seven named individuals and
a proposed collective action class in a demand letter brought on
behalf of assistant managers.

On November 24, 2015, Pollo Operations, Inc. and its subsidiary,
Pollo Franchise, Inc. (collectively "Pollo Tropical") received a
legal demand letter alleging that assistant managers were
misclassified as exempt from overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

On September 30, 2016, prior to any suit being filed, Pollo
Tropical reached a settlement with seven named individuals and a
proposed collective action class that will allow current and
former assistant managers to receive notice and opt-in to the
settlement. Pollo Tropical denies any liability or unlawful
conduct. The Company has recorded a charge of $0.8 million to
cover the estimated costs related to the settlement, including
estimated payments to individuals that opt-in to the settlement,
premium payments to named individuals, attorneys' fees for the
individuals' counsel, and related settlement administration costs.
The charge does not include legal fees incurred by Pollo Tropical
in defending the action. The settlement, which is subject to
approval by an arbitrator and a judicial body, will result in
dismissal with prejudice for the named individuals and all
individuals that opt-in to the settlement.

Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc., owns, operates and franchises two
fast-casual restaurant brands through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries Pollo Operations, Inc. and its subsidiaries, Pollo
Franchise, Inc. and Taco Cabana, Inc. and its subsidiaries.


FISHER HOMES: "Ayala" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARLOS AYALA on behalf of himself, individually and ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. FISHER HOMES OF
TEXAS, KAVAC LLC and KAVAC HOLDING COMPANY LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:16-cv-03494 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 24, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The action seeks equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, taxable costs of court, and post-
judgment interest for Defendants' willful failure to pay overtime
wages and compensation for hours worked, but not recorded or paid.

Fisher Homes is a construction firm that has been developing
properties for more than two decades.

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


FLORIDA, USA: Cunningham Appeals M.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Cunningham filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Thomas Cunningham v. Li, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-
00305-WTH-PRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida.

The suit alleges violation of prisoner Civil Rights.  Thomas
Cunningham is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Complex, in
Coleman, Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Cunningham v. Li, et
al., Case No. 16-17201, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit.

Defendants-Appellees LI, Doctor; CARVER, Doctor; DELON-BLANCO,
Doctor; and FCC COLEMAN WARDEN are represented by:

          Ralph E. Hopkins, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          400 W Washington St., Suite 3100
          Orlando, FL 32805
          Telephone: (407) 648-7500
          E-mail: ralph.hopkins@usdoj.gov


GENPACT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Alderman" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Alderman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Genpact Services, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-14522-DMM
(S.D. Fla., November 28, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Genpact Services, LLC offers business process management and
services in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
      Sovathary K. Jacobson, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 N. Highway A1A, Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 32963
      Telephone: (772) 234-5150
      Facsimile: (772) 234-5231
      E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com
              jacobson@verobeachlegal.com


GEORGIA MEDICAL: "Sheats" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Sheats, and similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff,
v. Georgia Medical Transportation, and Joe Hale, Individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00160-CDL (M.D. Ga., Nov. 22, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages,
declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff was an hourly paid employee performing local
transport duties within the last three years, i.e. from May 2015
through October 2015, for Defendant in Oconee County, Georgia.
During his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff, and those
similarly situated employees, regularly worked more than 40 hours
a week, but were not paid time and one-half his regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week during one
or more work weeks.

Georgia Medical Transportation provides medical transport services
to Georgians in need through a dispatch center, fleet of vehicles
and a team of trained drivers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adian Miller, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 496 7332
          Facsimile: (404) 496 7428
          E-mail: ARMiller@forthepeople.com


GOPRO INC: "Bielousov" Sues Over Non-Disclosure, Drop in Shares
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anton Bielousov, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GoPro, Inc., Nicholas Woodman
and Jack Lazar, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00232 (N.D. Cal.,
November 16, 2016), seeks compensatory damages including interest,
counsel fees and expert fees and other and further relief under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

GoPro Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 3000 Clearview Way, San Mateo, California
94402. GoPro develops and sells mountable and wearable cameras and
accessories in the United States and internationally. The
Company's cameras are designed primarily for filming while
immersed in action, such as outdoor or extreme sports. On October
23, 2016, following months of delays, GoPro released the Karma
drone, a compact, foldable drone designed for aerial photography
using GoPro's cameras.

GoPro allegedly failed to disclose that the Karma drones were
prone to losing power midflight, causing them to fall out of the
sky and that the Company had thus significantly overstated the
utility of and likely customer demand for the Karma drone.
November 8, 2016, post-market, GoPro announced the recall of the
approximately 2,500 Karma drones purchased by consumers since the
product's release, advising that the Company had discovered that
Karma units were prone to losing power during operation. On this
news, GoPro's share price fell $0.45, or 4.14%, to close at $10.41
on November 9, 2016. Plaintiff is a shareholder of GoPro stocks
and lost substantially.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

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

            - and -

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


H&R BLOCK: Perras Appeals W.D. Missouri Ruling to Eight Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ronald Perras filed an appeal a court ruling relating to
the lawsuit styled Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, et al., Case No.
4:12-cv-00450-BP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri - Kansas City.

The originating court document filed in the Eighth Circuit
consists of notice of cross-appeal, docket entries, order dated
July 27, 2016, and order dated September 29, 2016.

The appellate case is captioned as Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, et
al., Case No. 16-4248, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

Defendants H&R Block Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., and HRB
Technology, LLC, previously filed an Eighth Circuit appeal from a
ruling entered in the Case.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case
concerns a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the
2011 and 2012 tax seasons.  The Plaintiff originally sought to
represent all persons nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri)
who were charged the compliance fee, and asserted claims of
violation of various state consumer laws, money had and received,
and unjust enrichment.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appendix is due on January 3, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellants H&R Block, HRB Tax Group and HRB
      Technology is due on January 3, 2017; and

   -- Appellee/cross Appellant brief is due 30 days from the date
      the Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellant's brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant Ronald Perras, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          550 W. C Street, Suite 610
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Norman Siegel, Esq.
          Bradley Wilders, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  wilders@stuevesiegel.com

Defendants-Appellees H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., and HRB
Technology, LLC, are represented by:

          Kathryn Lee, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          40 Corporate Woods
          9401 Indian Creek Parkway
          Overland Park, KS 66210-0000
          Telephone: (913) 345-8100
          Facsimile: (913) 345-0736
          E-mail: klee@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          Glen David Nager, Esq.
          Charlotte Taylor, Esq.
          JONES & DAY
          51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001-2113
          Telephone: (202) 879-5464
          Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
          E-mail: gdnager@jonesday.com
                  ctaylor@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Simon, Esq.
          Derek T. Teeter, Esq.
          HUSCH & BLACKWELL
          4801 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 983-8000
          E-mail: jeff.simon@huschblackwell.com
                  derek.teeter@huschblackwell.com


HAILEY DEVELOPMENT: Faces Windham Suit Over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
Windham Contracting Corp., on behalf of itself and on behalf of
all others entitled to share in the funds received by Hailey
Development Group, LLC, as Trustee, in connection with the
improvement of the real property known as 78 Irving Place, New
York, New York Block: 874; Lot: 60 v. Hailey Development Group,
LLC, Richard Petrosa, Mary Filocamo, Irving Place Investor LLC,
Connectone Bank, US LBM LLC, GMC Contracting & Estimating Service,
Inc. and "John Doe No. 1" through "John Doe No., 1 00, Case No.
656206/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 29, 2016), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendants' breach of contract,
specifically by failing and refusing to pay for certain labor and
materials provided to, as well as other construction materials,
equipment and labor supplied by the Trust Fund Beneficiaries at
the Project located at 78 having Place, New York, New York, Block:
874; Lot: 60, and the unlawful diversion of said trust fund monies
for non-trust purposes.

Hailey Development Group, LLC is a construction company with its
principal place of business located at 236 Fifth A venue, 11th
Floor, New York, New York 10001.

Irving Place Investor LLC is a private equity firm focused on
leveraged buyout and growth capital investments in middle-market
companies across a range of industries.

Connectone Bank provides personal and business banking products
and services.

US LBM LLC is one of the largest building materials distributors
in the United States.

GMC Contracting & Estimating Service, Inc. operates a construction
company with its principal place of business located at 226 Miller
Street, Newark, New Jersey 07114.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Constantine T. Tzifas, Esq.
      ARTHUR J. SEMETIS, P.C.
      286 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 557-5055


HARDWOOD FLOORING: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lilia Maldonado, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Hardwood Flooring
Liquidators, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
BC642170 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 29, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to compensate its non-exempt
California employees with all wages earned during the course of
employment including but not limited to, all minimum and overtime
wages, failure to provide them with accurately itemized wage
statements, failure to compensate them with all premium wages for
missed, denied and unauthorized meal and rest periods, and failure
to pay them all wages due and owing upon separation of employment.

Hardwood Flooring Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of
hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
      Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
      Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
      Sepideh Ardestani, Esq.
      GAINES & GAINES, APLC
      27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101
      Calabasas, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 703-8985
      Facsimile: (818) 703-8984
      E-mail: ken@gaineslawfirm.com
              daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
              alex@gaineslawfirm.com
              sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com


HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Appeals Ruling in "Mackall" Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc., filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Karen Mackall v. Healthsource
Global Staffing, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-03810-WHO, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was removed from the Alameda County Superior Court to the District
Court.  The case asserts labor-related claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Karen Mackall v. Healthsource
Global Staffing, Inc., Case No. 16-17103, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 12, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on January 9, 2017;

   -- Appellant Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc.'s opening
      brief is due on February 21, 2017;

   -- Appellee Karen Mackall's answering brief is due on
      March 20, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiff-Appellee KAREN MACKALL, as an individual and on behalf
of all other similarly situated employees, is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          NaShaun Lamar Neal, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 East Ocean Boulevard
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  nneal@mahoney-law.net

Defendant-Appellant HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL STAFFING, INC., is
represented by:

          Thomas Roy Kaufman, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001
          Telephone: (310) 228-3748
          Facsimile: (310) 228-3942
          E-mail: tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Adam Ryan Rosenthal, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          12275 El Camino Real
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 720-8900
          Facsimile: (858) 523-6799
          E-mail: arosenthal@sheppardmullin.com


HERTZ CORP: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hecht" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
David Hecht filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled David Hecht v. Hertz Corp., Case No. 2-16-cv-01485, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The nature of suit is stated as "Other Contract Actions."

The appellate case is captioned as David Hecht v. Hertz Corp.,
Case No. 16-4138, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID HECHT, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
          Park 80 West - Plaza One
          250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845-9600
          Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
          E-mail: jwh@njlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee HERTZ CORP. is represented by:

          Kevin H. Marino, Esq.
          John D. Tortorella, Esq.
          MARINO, TORTORELLA & BOYLE PC
          437 Southern Boulevard
          Chatham, NJ 07928
          Telephone: (973) 824-9300
          Facsimile: (973) 824-8425
          E-mail: kmarino@khmarino.com
                  jtortorella@khmarino.com


HMJ PLASTERING: "Jackson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Alvin Jackson on behalf of herself, individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HMJ Plastering LLC, Defendant,
1221-1225 Realty LLC., 2000 LLC, Diego Ramirez, John Doe 1-2,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08781 (S.D. N.Y., November 11, 2016),
seeks equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, taxable costs of court, and post-judgment
interest for Defendant's willful failure to pay overtime wages and
compensation for hours worked but not recorded or paid, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

HMJ Plastering LLC is a concrete work contractor located in
Pasadena, TX. Plaintiff worked for Defendant, driving, delivering
goods and performing manual labor. Jackson would routinely work at
least seventy hours per week but were not paid overtime wages for
the overtime hours worked. Defendant also failed to maintain and
keep proper time-keeping records.

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


HORIZON PHARMA: Continues to Defend "Schaffer" Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Pharma Public Limited Company continues to defend a
consolidated securities lawsuit in New York, 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.

Beginning on March 8, 2016, two federal securities class action
lawsuits (captioned Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al., Case
No. 16-cv-01763-JMF and Banie v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al., Case
No. 16-cv-01789-JMF) were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former officers (the
"Officer Defendants"). On March 24, 2016, the court consolidated
the two actions under Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al. On
June 3, 2016, the court appointed Locals 302 and 612 of the
International Union of Operating Engineers-Employers Construction
Industry Retirement Trust and the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund
for Northern California as lead plaintiffs and Labaton Sucharow
LLP as lead counsel.

On July 25, 2016, lead plaintiffs and additional named plaintiff
Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund filed their consolidated
complaint, which they subsequently amended on October 7, 2016,
including additional current and former officers, the Company's
Board of Directors (the "Director Defendants"), and underwriters
involved with the Company's April 2015 public offering (the
"Underwriter Defendants") as defendants. The plaintiffs allege
that certain of the Company and the Officer Defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, by making false and/or misleading statements about,
among other things: (a) the Company's financial performance, (b)
the Company's business prospects and drug-pricing practices, (c)
the Company's sales and promotional practices, and (d) the
Company's design, implementation, performance, and risks
associated with the Company's Prescriptions-Made-Easy program. The
plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company, the Director
Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants violated sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the
"Securities Act") in connection with the Company's April 2015
public offering. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award
of damages allegedly sustained by plaintiffs and the putative
class, including a reasonable allowance for costs and attorneys'
fees. The defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to
the amended consolidated complaint is November 14, 2016.

Horizon Pharma Public Limited Company is a biopharmaceutical
company focused on improving patients' lives by identifying,
developing, acquiring and commercializing differentiated and
accessible medicines that address unmet medical needs.  The
Company markets 11 medicines through its orphan, rheumatology and
primary care business units.


HORIZON PHARMA: Faces 2 Suits Over Acquisition of Raptor Pharma
---------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Pharma Public Limited Company is facing two lawsuits in
Delaware arising from its acquisition of Raptor Pharmaceutical
Corp., 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.

Between October 5 and October 7, 2016, two complaints (captioned
Lavrenov v. Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp., et al., Case No. 16-cv-
00901, and Jordan v. Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp., et al., Case No.
16-cv-00913) were filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware. Both actions were filed against Raptor
and each member of Raptor's board of directors. The Company and
Misneach Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,
were named as defendants in the Lavrenov action, but not the
Jordan action. The actions were brought by purported stockholders
of Raptor, on their own behalf and as a putative class of Raptor
stockholders, and assert causes of action under Sections 14 and 20
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Lavrenov
action also asserts breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting claims under Delaware law. The complaints allege, among
other things, that the process leading up to the Raptor
acquisition was inadequate and that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by
Raptor with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC")
omits certain material information, which allegedly renders the
information disclosed materially misleading. The complaints seek,
among other things, to enjoin the Raptor acquisition, or in the
event the Raptor acquisition is consummated, to recover money
damages.

On October 17, 2016, Raptor filed an amended Schedule 14D-9 with
the SEC. Plaintiffs did not file a motion to preliminarily enjoin
the Raptor acquisition, which was completed on October 25, 2016.

Horizon Pharma Public Limited Company is a biopharmaceutical
company focused on improving patients' lives by identifying,
developing, acquiring and commercializing differentiated and
accessible medicines that address unmet medical needs.  The
Company markets 11 medicines through its orphan, rheumatology and
primary care business units.


IL PORTO BRICK: "Liz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Jasson Liz, Miguel Zucco, Edy Miculax, Hector Miculax, and
Nely Ivania Montoya, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Il Porto Brick Oven
Ristorante LLC d/b/a Il Porto Brick Oven Pizza & Ristorante,
Vincenzo David, Joseph Falco, and John Does No. 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06546 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages from Defendants for overtime work
for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by
law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, Defendants' failure to pay Mr. Liz and
Mr. Hector Miculax an amount at least equal to the federal or New
York state minimum wages in effect during relevant time periods
was willful, and lacked a good faith basis. The Plaintiffs were
paid in cash throughout their employment, and they received no
paystubs or wage statements with their pay. In addition, the
Defendants failed to pay plaintiffs any overtime "bonus" for hours
worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA,
the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State
Department of Labor regulations.

Il Porto offers pizza & other Italian staples plus drinks in
large, casual surrounds.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563 9884
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


KALAMOTI INC: Faces "Vargas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kalamoti Inc. The
case is styled Juan Carlos Lara Vargas, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kalamoti Inc.,
doing business as Ridgeway Diner, and John Vitelas, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09151 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2016).

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Appeals Cert. of Classes in "Shahinian" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc.,
filed an appeal from the District Court's order granting in part
and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
in the lawsuit titled HRAYR SHAHINIAN, M.D., F.A.C.S., an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, et al. v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation; and HALYARD HEALTH, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Case No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-PLA (C.D. Cal.).

The appellate case is captioned as KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation, and HALYARD HEALTH, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendants-Petitioners v. HRAYR SHAHINIAN, M.D.,
F.A.C.S., an individual; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents, Case No. 16-80171, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Appellants would like the Ninth Circuit to determine whether
the District Court manifestly erred:

   1. in applying a class-wide presumption of reliance as to the
      Plaintiff's omission claim in the face of clear evidence
      that class members were not uniformly exposed to the
      challenged advertising at the point of sale; and

   2. because it failed to recognize that most gown purchases
      (more than 70%) were governed by multiple arms-length
      contracts, which inject a host of predominant individual
      issues into the case concerning choice of law, liability,
      defenses, and damages.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs sought certification of three classes:

     1. California Damages/Restitution Class: All entities and
        natural persons in California who purchased the MicroCool
        Gowns from February 12, 2012 up to and including
        January 11, 2015 (the "California Damages/Restitution
        Class").

     2. California Injunctive Relief Class: All entities and
        natural persons in California who purchased the MicroCool
        Gowns from February 12, 2012 up to and including
        January 11, 2015 (the "California Injunctive Relief
        Class").

     3. Nationwide Issue Based Class: A nationwide class of all
        entities and natural persons who purchased the MicroCool
        Gowns from February 12, 2012 up to and including
        January 11, 2015, for the resolution of the specific
        issue of whether Defendants misrepresented during the
        time period February 12, 2012 up to and including
        January 11, 2015 the liquid barrier claims relating to
        the MicroCool Gowns (e.g. whether the gowns met the AAMI
        Level 4 standard) on the gowns' packaging and in their
        marketing materials and/or whether Defendants concealed
        material facts relating thereto.

District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee certified the California
Damages/Restitution Class and the California Injunctive Relief
Class but only to the extent that they involve the fraudulent
concealment claim and the Unfair Competition Law claim based
thereon.  The Court declines to certify the Nationwide Issue Based
Class.

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Michael J. Avenatti, State Bar No. 206929
          Ahmed Ibrahim, State Bar No. 238739
          Andrew Stolper, State Bar No. 205462
          EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP
          520 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-7000
          Facsimile: (949) 706-7050
          E-mail: mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com
                  aibrahim@eaganavenatti.com
                  astolper@eaganavenatti.com

The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:

          Chilton D. Varner, Esq.
          Stephen B. Devereaux, Esq.
          Madison H. Kitchens, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: cvarner@kslaw.com
                  sdevereaux@kslaw.com
                  mkitchens@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Alexander Calfo, Esq.
          Julia Romano, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 W 5th Street, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com
                  jromano@kslaw.com


KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: LaCross Appeals Ruling in Suit v. USDC-AZP
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick LaCross, Robert Lira and Matthew Lofton filed an appeal
against the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona,
Phoenix.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick LaCross, et al. v.
USDC-AZP, Case No. 16-73670, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

The issues arose from their lawsuit styled Patrick LaCross, et al.
v. Knight Transportation Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00990-JJT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona,
Phoenix.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District
Court Judge John J. Tuchi granted the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration and stay action the case.

In their original complaint, the Plaintiffs brought a complaint on
behalf of a putative class of truck drivers in California state
court, claiming that the Defendants illegally classified them as
independent contractors under the California Labor Code.  The
Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California based on diversity
jurisdiction.

On May 28, 2015, District Judge Bernal granted the Defendants'
motion to transfer case to the District of Arizona.  On Jan. 22,
2016, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, raising 13
claims pursuant to California law.  The Defendants filed a motion
to compel arbitration and stay action.

Judge John J. Tuchi granted the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration and stay action and compelling arbitration of the
arbitrability of the Plaintiffs' claim.  The parties shall file a
joint status report within one week of the arbitrator's decision
on arbitrability or by January 6, 2017, whichever is sooner.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Patrick LaCross, Robert Lira and Matthew
Lofton are represented by:

          David Christopher Leimbach, Esq.
          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29229 Canwood Street
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (585) 255-0158
          E-mail: dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com
                  ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          James M. Trush, Esq.
          TRUSH LAW OFFICE, APC
          695 Town Center Drive
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 384-6390
          E-mail: jtrush@earthlink.net

Real Parties in Interest KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION INC., An Arizona
Corporation, and KNIGHT TRUCK AND TRAILER SALES, LLC, an Arizona
Limited Liability Company, are represented by:

          Kai-Ching Cha, Esq.
          Richard H. Rahm, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          E-mail: kcha@littler.com
                  rrahm@littler.com

               - and -

          James Eric Hart, Esq.
          Thomas J. Whiteside, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2050 Main Street
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 705-3003
          E-mail: jhart@littler.com
                  twhiteside@littler.com

               - and -

          Kristy L. Peters, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2425 East Camelback Road
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 474-3639
          E-mail: kpeters@littler.com


KOHLBERG VENTURES: Faces "Wojciechowski" Suit in N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kohlberg Ventures,
LLC. The case is titled Peter Wojciechowski, on his own behalf and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Kohlberg Ventures, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06775
(N.D. Cal., Nov. 23, 2016).

Kohlberg Ventures is a venture capital firm specializing in early
stage and growth financing. The firm typically invests in digital
media, mobile commerce, consumer product and clean tech companies.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


LANDRY'S INC: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Break
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Sugrue, an individual, and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Landry's Inc. and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. BC641552 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 23, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide employees
with meal and rest periods and failure to pay them for missed meal
and rest periods.

Landry's Inc. is a privately owned, multi-brand dining,
hospitality, entertainment and gaming corporation that owns and
operates more than 500 properties, including more than 40 unique
brands.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chiharu Selcino, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      401 West A Street, Suite 2550
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 235-2416
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: csekino@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      Monique Olivier, Esq.
      DUCKWORTH, PETERS, LEBOWITZ, OLIVIER, LLP
      100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 433-0333
      Facsimile: (415) 449-6556
      E-mail: monique@dplolaw.com

LEASING ENTERPRISES: Shaffer Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK SHAFFER, the Plaintiff, v. LEASING ENTERPRISES, LTD., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01193 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 22, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs.

Mark Shaffer brought the collective action against Defendant
because it failed to pay the minimum wage required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Indeed, Defendant is violating the
FLSA's minimum wage provision in multiple ways. For example,
Defendant is failing to adhere to the "tip credit" requirements.
The Defendant is also failing to remit to its tipped employees
their net tips received after converting to cash all tips left
through credit card and debit cards, says the complaint.

The class of similarly situated employees consists of all persons,
during the period November 22, 2013 to the present that Defendant
charged a fee for converting their tips into cash or for whom
Defendant claimed a tip credit.

Defendant owns and operates restaurants in Travis County, Bexar
County, and surrounding counties in the Western District of Texas,
and throughout Texas. These restaurants are called "Perry's
Steakhouse & Grille", "Perry & Sons Market & Grille" and "Perry's
Italian Grille".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard L. Steele, Jr., Esq.
          STEELE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          500 Dallas, Suite 3440
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 659 2600
          Facsimile: (713) 659 2601
          E-mail: hsteele@steele-law-group.com


LENDMARK FINANCIAL: Faces "Crumpton" Class Suit in N.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Lendmark
Financial Services LLC.

The case is captioned Gloria Crumpton and Lecretia Crumpton, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Lendmark
Financial Services LLC, Case No. 7:16-cv-01902-JHE (N.D. Al.,
November 28, 2016).

Lendmark Financial Services LLC is a consumer finance company that
specializes in providing direct and indirect personal loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      106 East Sixth Street Suite 913
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 322-3912
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Gina DeRosier Greenwald, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Road Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: ggreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

LINDE LLC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Hobson" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linde, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Brock Hobson v. Linde, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-01984-PA-DTB,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Riverside.

The appellate case is captioned as Brock Hobson v. Linde, LLC,
Case No. 16-80174, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Respondent BROCK HOBSON, on behalf of himself, all other
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, is
represented by:

          William David Turley, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com

Defendant Petitioner LINDE, LLC, is represented by:

          Douglas A. Wickham, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: dwickham@littler.com


LIVE NATION: Has Accrued $14.8MM for Costs in Ticketing Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., has accrued $14.8 million for the
remaining costs associated with a settlement resolving the
consumer litigation over ticketing fees, 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 March 18, 2016, all appeals relating to a settlement agreement
reached by the plaintiffs and Ticketmaster in respect of a
ticketing fees consumer class action litigation matter originally
filed in October 2003 against Ticketmaster were dismissed, thus
resolving this matter and allowing the implementation of the terms
of the settlement.  The Company has funded a portion of the
settlement primarily related to the plaintiffs' attorney fees.
Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledged
any violations of law or liability in connection with the matter.

As of September 30, 2016, the Company had accrued $14.8 million,
its best estimate of the probable remaining costs associated with
the settlement, which was recorded in prior years. The Company
says the calculation of this liability is based in part upon an
estimated redemption rate.  Any difference between the Company's
estimated redemption rate and the actual redemption rate it
experiences will impact the final settlement amount; however, the
Company does not expect this difference to be material.


MAJOR LEAGUE: Payne Appeals Decision in Suit Over Safety Netting
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gail Payne and Stephanie Smith filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Gail Payne, et al. v.
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, DBA Major League Baseball,
et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-03229-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Oakland A's
fan Gail Payne and two other named plaintiffs said in their
lawsuit that many baseball players allow their families to sit
only in sections protected by netting or "way up" in the stands,
where foul balls and shards from shattered bats are less likely to
hit them.

A sharply hit foul ball can reach peak forces of 8,300 pounds
after leaving a bat, enough to stop a small car, the Plaintiffs
say.  Fans, often children, have been blinded and had their skulls
fractured by stray balls and bats, according to the lawsuit. A 14-
year-old boy died at Dodger Stadium after being hit by a ball in
1970.

The appellate case is captioned as Gail Payne, et al. v. OFFICE OF
THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, DBA Major League Baseball, et al.,
Case No. 16-17131, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 28, 2016;

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 19, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on January 17, 2017;

   -- Appellants Gail Payne and Stephanie Smith's opening brief
      is due on February 27, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Angels Baseball LP, Arizona
      Professional Baseball LP, Atlanta National League Baseball
      Club, Inc., Baltimore Orioles Limited Partnership, Boston
      Red Sox Baseball Club Limited Partnership, Chicago National
      League Ball Club, LLC, Chicago White Sox Ltd., Cleveland
      Indians Baseball Company Limited Partnership, Colorado
      Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd., Detroit Tigers, Inc., Houston
      Astros, LLC, Kansas City Royals, Los Angeles Dodgers LLC,
      Robert D. Manfred Jr., Miami Marlins, L.P., Milwaukee
      Brewers Baseball Club, L.P., Minnesota Twins Baseball Club,
      New York Yankees Partnership, Oakland Athletics Limited
      Partnership, Office of the Commissioner of Baseball,
      Pittsburgh Associates, LP, Rangers Baseball Express LLC,
      San Diego Padres Baseball Club, L.P., San Francisco Giants
      Enterprises LLC, St. Louis Cardinals LLC, Sterling Mets,
      L.P., Tampa Bay Rays Baseball Limited, The Baseball Club of
      Seattle LLP, The Cincinnati Reds LLC, The Philadelphia
      Phillies, Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club and Washington
      Nationals Baseball Club, LLC, is due on March 28, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellants GAIL PAYNE and STEPHANIE SMITH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Steve Berman, Esq.
          Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
          HAGENS & BERMAN LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

Defendants-Appellees OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, DBA
Major League Baseball, ROBERT D. MANFRED, Jr., ARIZONA
PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL LP, ATLANTA NATIONAL LEAGUE BASEBALL CLUB,
INC., BALTIMORE ORIOLES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BOSTON RED SOX
BASEBALL CLUB LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, CHICAGO NATIONAL LEAGUE BALL
CLUB, LLC, CHICAGO WHITE SOX LTD., THE CINCINNATI REDS LLC,
CLEVELAND INDIANS BASEBALL COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, COLORADO
ROCKIES BASEBALL CLUB, LTD., DETROIT TIGERS, INC., HOUSTON ASTROS,
LLC, KANSAS CITY ROYALS, ANGELS BASEBALL LP, LOS ANGELES DODGERS
LLC, MIAMI MARLINS, L.P., MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, L.P.,
MINNESOTA TWINS BASEBALL CLUB, STERLING METS, L.P., NEW YORK
YANKEES PARTNERSHIP, OAKLAND ATHLETICS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, THE
PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES, PITTSBURGH ASSOCIATES, LP, SAN DIEGO PADRES
BASEBALL CLUB, L.P., SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS ENTERPRISES LLC, THE
BASEBALL CLUB OF SEATTLE LLP, ST. LOUIS CARDINALS LLC, TAMPA BAY
RAYS BASEBALL LIMITED, RANGERS BASEBALL EXPRESS LLC, TORONTO BLUE
JAYS BASEBALL CLUB, and WASHINGTON NATIONALS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC,
are represented by:

          Thomas Gorman, Esq.
          John Watkins Keker, Esq.
          Robert Adam Lauridsen, Esq.
          Philip James Tassin, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
          E-mail: tgorman@kvn.com
                  jwk@kvn.com
                  alauridsen@kvn.com
                  ptassin@kvn.com


MATCH GROUP: Defends Consolidated IPO-Related Suit in N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Match Group, Inc., is defending a consolidated lawsuit arising
from its initial public offering in November 2015, 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.

As previously disclosed in the Company's annual report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, and the
Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
ended March 31, 2016, on February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide
class action was filed in federal court in Texas against the
Company, five of its officers and directors, and twelve
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering in November
2015.  See David M. Stein v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-
cv-549 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas).  The
complaint alleged that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with its initial public offering
were materially false and misleading given their failure to state
that: (i) the Company's Non-dating business would miss its revenue
projection for the quarter ended December 31, 2015, and (ii) ARPPU
(as defined in "Item 2-Management's Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations-General-Key Terms")
would decline substantially in the quarter ended December 31,
2015.  The complaint asserted that these alleged failures to
timely disclose material information caused the Company's stock
price to drop after the announcement of its earnings for the
quarter ended December 31, 2015.  The complaint pleaded claims
under the Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material
fact in, or omissions of material facts from, the registration
statement, the prospectus, and related communications in violation
of Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants
only, control-person liability under Section 15 for the Company's
alleged violations.  The complaint sought class certification,
damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was
filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different
named plaintiff.  See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas).  On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an
order granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to
Judge Lindsay, who was presiding over the earlier-filed Stein
case.  On April 27, 2016, various current or former shareholders
in the Company and their respective law firms filed motions
seeking appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison
counsel for the putative class.  On April 28, 2016, the Court
issued orders: (i) consolidating the Chan case into the Stein
case, (ii) approving the parties' stipulation to extend the
defendants' time to respond to the complaint until after the Court
has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the putative
class and has set a schedule for the plaintiff's filing of a
consolidated complaint and the defendants' response to that
pleading, and (iii) referring the various motions for appointment
of lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for the putative
class to a United States Magistrate Judge for determination.  On
June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order appointing two
lead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel, and
a third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison counsel.  In accordance
with this order, the consolidated case is now captioned Mary
McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-CV-549-L.

On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint
status report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of a
consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the
defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  On August 17, 2016, the Court issued an order
approving the parties' proposed schedule.

On September 9, 2016, in accordance with the schedule, the
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.  The new
pleading focuses solely on allegedly misleading statements or
omissions concerning the Company's Non-dating business.  The
defendants were to file motions to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint on or before November 8, 2016.

The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are
without merit and will defend vigorously against them.

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products.  The Company operates
a portfolio of over 45 brands, including Match, OkCupid,
PlentyOfFish, Tinder, Meetic, Twoo, OurTime, BlackPeopleMeet and
LoveScout24 (formerly known as FriendScout24), each designed to
increase the Company's users' likelihood of finding a romantic
connection.


MCKESSON CORP: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in True Health Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs True Health Chiropractic, Inc., and McLaughlin
Chiropractic Assocs., Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
their lawsuit styled TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC, INC., and
MCLAUGHLIN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCS., INC., individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons v.
MCKESSON CORPORATION and MCKESSON TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No.
3:13-cv-02219-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as True Health Chiropractic, Inc.,
et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-17123, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs also appealed a decision in the lawsuit to the Ninth
Circuit.

In their second amended complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
sending "unsolicited advertisements" by fax.  On August 22, 2016,
District Court Judge Haywood S. Gilliam denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- November 25, 2016 -- Mediation Questionnaire due;

   -- December 16, 2016 -- Transcript shall be ordered;

   -- January 17, 2017 -- Transcript shall be filed by court
      reporter;

   -- February 24, 2017 -- Appellants' opening brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and
      9th Cir. R. 32-1;

   -- March 27, 2017 -- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and
      9th Cir. R. 32-1; and

   -- The optional appellants' reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 14 days of service of the appellees' brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1.


MERCURY CASUALTY: Sued in Cal. Over Depreciation Method Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Marie Meschi, Junior Eddy Joseph, Vincent Andrew Meschi, and
Carole, Gianfermo guardian adlitem for Dominique Chesere Joseph,
on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons
v. Mercury Casualty Company, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 16-
cv-02607 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 29, 2016), is an action for
damages as a proximate result of Mercury's use of an illegal
depreciation method, which substantially reduces its claim
liabilities and increases its profits, by applying high levels of
depreciation when adjusting contents claims, without regard to the
actual, physical condition of the damaged property.

Mercury Casualty Company operates an automobile and property
insurance company which conduct business in the state of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward Kerley, Esq.
      Dylan L. Schaffer, Esq.
      KERLEY SCHAFFER LLP
      1939 Harrison Street, #500
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 379-5801
      Facsimile: (510) 228-0350
      E-mail: edward@kslaw.us
              dylan@kslaw.us


MHNB INC: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Luis Cabrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and Edwin Figueroa, Marco T. Canan, and Modesto Cabrera
Flores, individually, Plaintiffs, v. MHNB, Inc. d/b/a The Ultimate
Car Wash and John Doe Corp., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06579,
(E.D. N.Y., November 28, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, minimum wages, monetary damages and affirmative
relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
New York Labor Laws.

Defendants operate a car wash located at 1290 Woodfield Road,
Rockville Centre, New York 11570 where Plaintiffs were employed as
car wash attendants, who regularly worked over 40 hours per week,
but were not compensated properly for the overtime hours worked.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marijana Matura, Esq.
     Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
     SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
     534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: (631) 499-9100


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Shelby" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is entitled Elliott Shelby, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., also known as Midland Funding,
LLC a/k/a Midland Funding, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06536
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2016).

Midland Credit helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations.

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


MORTON COUNTY: "Dundon" Alleges Illegal Crowd Dispersion
--------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Dundon, Jade Kalikolehuaokalani Wool, Crystal Wilson,
David Demo, Guy Dullknife III, Mariah Marie Bruce, Frank Finan,
Israel Hoagland-Lynn, and Noah Michael Treanor, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Kyle
Kirchmeier, Morton County, City of Mandan, Jason Ziegler, Stutsman
County, Chad Kaiser and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00406 (D.N.D., November 28, 2016), seeks damages and injunctive
relief arising from curtailment of the Plaintiffs' First and
Fourth Amendment rights.

On November 20, 2016, Plaintiff gathered to pray and to peacefully
protest the continued construction of Dakota Access Pipeline and
the ongoing blockage of the public highway 1806. Police officers
from the Morton County Sheriff's Department, City of Mandan Police
Department and Stutsman County Sheriffs Department deployed
teargas and fired water cannons to disperse them.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachel Lederman, Esq.
      RACHEL LEDERMAN & ALEXSIS C. BEACH, ATTORNEYS
      558 Capp Street
      San Francisco, CA 94110
      Tel: (415) 282-9300
      Fax: (510) 520-5296
      Email: rachel@bllaw.info

             - and -

      Lauren Regan, Esq.
      CIVIL LIBERTIES DEFENSE CENTER
      783 Grant Street, Suite 200
      Eugene, OR 97402
      Tel: (541) 687-9180
      Fax (541) 804-7391
      Email: lregan@cldc.org

             - and -

      Jeffrey Haas, Esq.
      1433 Seville Rd
      Santa Fe, NM 87505
      Tel: 505-469-0714
      Fax (505) 995-9866
      Email: JeffreyHaas42@gmail.com

             - and -

      James R. Fennerty, Esq.
      JAMES R. FENNERTY & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. 36
      South Wabash Avenue, Suite 1310
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 345-1704
      Fax: (312) 422-0708


MOUNT SINAI: "Latner" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Daniel Latner, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Mount Sinai Health
System, Inc. and West Park Medical Group, P.C., Case No. 1:16-cv-
10502, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-mc-00429-AKH to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate a health care company that offers high
quality medicine and surgery services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
      Burke Law Offices, LLC
      155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 729-5288
      Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
      E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

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

NATIONAL INTERSTATE: Signs MOU to Settle "Solak" Suit Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Interstate Corporation entered into a memorandum of
understanding to resolve the putative class action lawsuit
initiated by John Solak challenging the proposed merger with
American Insurance Company, according to the Company's Form 8-K
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2016.

As previously disclosed in the definitive proxy statement filed by
National Interstate Corporation (the "Company"), an Ohio
corporation, with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") on October 11, 2016 (as amended, the "Proxy Statement")
pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
July 25, 2016 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Great
American Insurance Company ("Parent"), an Ohio corporation, GAIC
Alloy, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), an Ohio corporation, and the Company,
following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement, the lawsuit captioned Solak v. Consolino, Case no.
5:16-cv-02470, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division) against the
Company, the members of the Company's board of directors, AFG,
Parent and Merger Sub (the "Defendants"). Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company,
the separate corporate existence of Merger Sub will cease and the
Company will continue its corporate existence under Ohio law as
the surviving corporation in the merger. Parent, which currently
owns approximately 51% of the total number of outstanding common
shares of the Company, will own 100% of the equity interests of
the Company following the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement.

The complaint alleges class and derivative claims under Sections
13(e), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder, and for breaches of fiduciary
duties by the members of the Company's Board of Directors and by
Parent as an alleged controlling shareholder. Plaintiff alleges
the consideration to be received by shareholders in the merger is
inadequate, that the process used in entering the Merger Agreement
was flawed, and that the Merger Agreement contains preclusive and
onerous deal protection devices that limit the pursuit of superior
proposals and alternatives. The complaint also alleges that the
initial proxy statement, and the first amendment thereto, filed in
respect of the merger was materially incomplete and misleading.
The complaint purports to seek, among other things, injunctive
relief, money damages and attorney's and expert fees and expenses.
The complaint contains both direct class action claims as well as
indirect shareholder derivative claims.

On November 6, 2016, the parties to the Solak lawsuit reached an
agreement in principle as to a memorandum of understanding with
respect to a proposed settlement of the Solak lawsuit, pursuant to
which the parties have agreed, among other things, that the
Company will make certain supplemental disclosures related to the
proposed merger.

The Defendants believe that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the Proxy Statement under applicable laws; however, to
avoid the risk that the Ohio court could issue an injunction in
connection with the Solak lawsuit, which would delay or otherwise
adversely affect the completion of the proposed merger, AFG and
the Company decided to make the Supplemental Disclosures. The
Supplemental Disclosures amend and supplement the disclosures
contained in the Proxy Statement and should be read in conjunction
with the disclosures contained in the Proxy Statement, which
should be read in its entirety.

The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of
settlement contemplated by the parties will be subject to
customary conditions, including court approval following notice to
the Company's shareholders. In the event that the parties enter
into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at
which the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio (Eastern Division) will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims that were or could have been brought in any actions
challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the Merger
Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith. Terms
of settlement will be disclosed to shareholders of the Company
prior to final approval of the settlement. In connection with the
settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will
file a petition with the court for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to be paid by the Company or its successor, which the
defendants may oppose. There can be no assurance that the parties
will ultimately enter into a memorandum of understanding or
stipulation of settlement or that the Ohio court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Order in "Attia" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The Neiman Marcus Group LLC, erroneously sued as The
Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Holly Attia, et al. v. The Neiman Marcus Group
LLC, et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-00504-DOC-FFM, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the putative
class action's first amended complaint was filed on February 11,
2016, against Neiman Marcus in the Superior Court of California,
Orange County, by Holly Attia and seven other named plaintiffs.
They allege claims for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse business
expenses, failure to timely pay wages due at termination and
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements.  The
Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all nonexempt employees of
the Company in California since December 31, 2011.

The appellate case is captioned as Holly Attia, et al. v. The
Neiman Marcus Group LLC, et al., Case No. 16-56712, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 16, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on March 16, 2017;

   -- Appellants Does and The Neiman Marcus Group LLC's opening
      brief is due on April 25, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Holly Attia, Roshanak Basti,
      Niloofar Eshaghbeigl, Michelle Girard, Elise Kelley, Kim
      Marconi, Isabel Romero and David Tolbert is due on May 25,
      2017; and


   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellees HOLLY ATTIA, ROSHANAK BASTI, NILOOFAR
ESHAGHBEIGL, MICHELLE GIRARD, ELISE KELLEY, KIM MARCONI, ISABEL
ROMERO and DAVID TOLBERT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com

Defendant-Appellant THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company Erroneously Sued As The Neiman Marcus
Group, Inc. a Texas corporation, is represented by:

          Aaron Lee Agenbroad, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 626-3939
          Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
          E-mail: alagenbroad@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Cindi Ritchey, Esq.
          MEYER WHITE LLC
          600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 960
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 330-1760
          E-mail: critchey@jonesday.com


NOBILIS HEALTH: Court Dismisses "Schott" Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nobilis Health Corp. 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 case styled
Schott v. Nobilis Health Corp., et al., is dismissed with
prejudice.

After the Company announced it would be restating its 2014 annual
financial statements and 2015 first and second quarter interim
financial statements, one complaint, Schott v. Nobilis Health
Corp., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas against the Company, its former
chief executive officer and its current chief financial officer.
The complaint sought class action status on behalf of the
Company's shareholders and alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of
the restatement.

The defendants vigorously defended against these claims and filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to plead
particularized facts supporting a strong inference of scienter on
the part of the individual defendants. On June 1, 2016, the court
heard oral arguments on the Company's pending motion to dismiss
which the court later granted on September 29, 2016. The court
ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice on October 24, 2016.

Nobilis Health Corp. was incorporated on March 16, 2007, under the
name "Northstar Healthcare Inc." pursuant to the provisions of the
British Columbia Business Corporations Act. On December 5, 2014,
Northstar Healthcare Inc. changed its name to Nobilis Health Corp.
The Company owns and manages health care facilities in the States
of Texas and Arizona, consisting primarily of ambulatory surgery
centers and acute-care surgical hospitals.


NOBILIS HEALTH: Defends "Capelli" Securities Class Suit in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nobilis Health Corp. is defending a putative class action lawsuit
filed by Vince Capelli in Canada, 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.

A statement of claim (complaint), Vince Capelli v. Nobilis Health
Corp. et al., was filed on January 8, 2016, in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice under court file number CV-16-544173
naming Nobilis Health Corp., certain current and former officers
and the Company's former auditors as defendants. The statement of
claim seeks to advance claims on behalf of the plaintiff and on
behalf of a class comprised of certain of the Company's
shareholders related to, among other things, alleged certain
violations of the Ontario Securities Act and seeks damages in the
amount of C$80 million plus interest.

The Company says the defendants intend to vigorously defend
against these claims.  At this time the Company believes the
likelihood of loss, if any, is remote.

Nobilis Health Corp. was incorporated on March 16, 2007, under the
name "Northstar Healthcare Inc." pursuant to the provisions of the
British Columbia Business Corporations Act. On December 5, 2014,
Northstar Healthcare Inc. changed its name to Nobilis Health Corp.
The Company owns and manages health care facilities in the States
of Texas and Arizona, consisting primarily of ambulatory surgery
centers and acute-care surgical hospitals.


NORTH SHORE: "Collymore" Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Collymore and Faisal Malik, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. North Shore University
Hospital, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06584 (E.D. N.Y., November
28, 2016), seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Laws.

North Shore University Hospital, located at 300 Community Drive,
Manhasset, New York, is an 806-bed hospital with a staff of over
3,000 physicians where Collymore and Malik worked as registered
nurses. They claim to be denied overtime pay for overtime hours
during their 13th shift.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
      Orin Kurtz, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
      Tower 56, 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 905-0509
      Fax: (212) 905-0508
      Email: mgardy@gardylaw.com
             okurtz@gardylaw.com


NOVARTIS PHARMA: Restrains Gleevec Availability, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
RXDN Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Novartis AG, and Novartis
Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-12399 (D. Mass., November 23, 2016),
is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' unlawful
delay of generic entry into the U.S. market for Gleevec (imatinib
mesylate).

Gleevec is an FDA-approved prescription drug that radically
improves the lives of the thousands of patients suffering chronic
myeloid leukemia (CML), a cancer of the blood and bone marrow.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company which maintains a
global research headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Adkins, Esq.
      Noah Rosmarin, Esq.
      ADKINS, KELSTON & ZAVEZ, P.C.
      90 Canal Street, Suite 500
      Boston, MA 02114
      Telephone: (617) 367-1040
      Facsimile: (617) 742-8280
      E-mail: jadkins@akzlaw.com

         - and -

      John D. Radice, Esq.
      Kenneth Pickle, Esq.
      RADICE LAW FIRM, PC
      34 Sunset Blvd
      Long Beach, NJ 08008
      Telephone: (646) 245-8502
      Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
      E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com

         - and -

      Eric L. Young, Esq.
      MCELDREW YOUNG
      123 S. Broad St., Suite 2250
      Philadelphia, PA 19109
      Telephone: (215) 367-5151
      Facsimile: (215) 367-5143
      E-mail: eyoung@mceldrewyoung.com


NRA GROUP: Faces "Kennedy" Suit in Middle Dist. of Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NRA Group. The case
is captioned Linda Kennedy, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NRA Group, LLC d/b/a
National Recovery Agency, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02357-YK
(M.D. Pa., Nov. 23, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Yvette
Kane.

NRA is a full service collection agency that offers a wide range
of services in a number of industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur Stock, Esq.
          Lane L. Vines, Esq.
          Shanon J Carson, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 5704
          E-mail: astock@bm.net
                  lvines@bm.net
                  scarson@bm.net


NUTS.COM: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, "Garay" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Garay, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nuts.com, Inc. and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No.
BC642202 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 29, 2016), seeks to put an end
to the Defendants' practice of recording wireless telephone
conversations without prior express consent of the called party.

Nuts.com, Inc. operates an e-commerce company selling the highest
quality nuts, dried fruit, healthy snacks, candy, and cooking and
baking products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      David W. Reid, Esq.
      Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
      PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
      A Professional Corporation
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
              dreid@pacifictrialattomeys.com
              vknowles@pacifictrialattomeys.com


OK FOODS: Seeks Eighth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Cato" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
OK Foods, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
titled Darrell Cato, et al. v. OK Foods, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
02202-PKH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas - Ft. Smith.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the original
lawsuit, Case No. CV-16-00679, was removed from the Circuit Court
of Sebastian County, Arkansas, to the District Court.  In their
complaint, the Plaintiffs contend that the action is filed for
unpaid donning and doffing.  The Plaintiffs are hourly production
employees at O.K. Foods' Fort Smith food processing and
manufacturing plants.  They allege that OK Foods' employees are
not paid for approximately six to seven hours per week they spend
working, and they bring the action to receive the wages they are
owed.

The appellate case is captioned as Darrell Cato, et al. v. OK
Foods, Inc., Case No. 16-8023, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Respondents Darrell Cato, Jeffrey Biggs, Margee
Williams and Mario Mallett are represented by:

          John Holleman, Esq.
          Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
          HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATE P.A.
          1008 West 2nd Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-5040
          Facsimile: (501) 975-5043
          E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net
                  tim@johnholleman.net

               - and -

          Stephen M. Sharum, Esq.
          SHARUM LAW FIRM
          P. O. Box 1951
          19 Court Street
          Fort Smith, AR 72902
          Telephone: (479) 785-0123
          Facsimile: (479) 785-4518
          E-mail: stevesharum@aol.com

               - and -

          Gary William Udouj, Sr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GARY W. UDOUJ, P.A.
          5 Court Street
          P.O. Box 2102
          Fort Smith, AR 72901
          Telephone: (479) 782-5400
          Facsimile: (479) 782-8445
          E-mail: gudouj1@gmail.com

Defendant-Petitioner OK Foods, Inc., is represented by:

          Jess L. Askew, III, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 West Capitol, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-3000
          Facsimile: (501) 975-3001
          E-mail: jess.askew@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          James Raymond Carroll, Esq.
          Jeff Fletcher, Esq.
          Matthew Scott Jackson, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK, LLP
          234 East Millsap Road, Suite 400
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 973-4200
          Facsimile: (479) 973-0007
          E-mail: jr.carroll@kutakrock.com
                  jeff.fletcher@kutakrock.com
                  scott.jackson@kutakrock.com


ON DECK CAPITAL: IPO-Related Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated case arising from On Deck Capital, Inc.'s initial
public offering was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice as to
all parties, 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.

Two separate putative class actions were filed in August 2015 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, certain of its executive officers, its
directors and certain or all of the underwriters of its initial
public offering. The suits allege that the registration statement
and prospectus for the Company's initial public offering contained
materially false and misleading statements regarding, or failed to
disclose, certain information in violation of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended. The suits seek a determination that the case
is a proper class action and/or certification of the plaintiff as
a class representative, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages and/or unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
other fees and costs.

On February 18, 2016, the court issued an order (1) consolidating
the two cases, (2) selecting the lead plaintiff and (3) appointing
lead class counsel.  On March 18, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed
an amended complaint. In accordance with the court approved
schedule for the case as modified by the court, on June 13, 2016
we filed a motion to dismiss the case and on September 9, 2016,
the lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss.

On September 26, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of the consolidated cases without prejudice as
to all parties, which was so ordered by the court on Sept. 28,
2016.

On Deck Capital, Inc., provides financing to small businesses
located throughout the United States, as well as in Canada and
Australia, through term loans and lines of credit.  The Company
uses technology and analytics to aggregate data about a business
and then quickly and efficiently analyzes the creditworthiness of
the business using its proprietary credit-scoring model.


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Filing of Brief in "Colley" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., awaits filing of lead plaintiff's
appellant opening brief in the consolidated securities case,
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 March 10, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of the Company's officers in the
United States District Court, for the Southern District of
California, captioned Colley v. Orexigen, et al. The following
day, two additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the same court, captioned Stefanko v. Orexigen, et al., and Yantz
v. Orexigen, et al ., asserting substantially similar claims. On
June 22, 2015, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed a
lead plaintiff. On August 20, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint purports to
assert claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's
stock between March 3, 2015 and May 12, 2015. It alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making false and misleading
statements regarding the interim results and termination of the
Light Study. The consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified
amount of damages, attorneys' fees and equitable or injunctive
relief.

On October 5, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On May 19, 2016, the District Court
granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing portions of the
consolidated complaint with prejudice and portions without
prejudice. The Court granted lead plaintiff 30 days to file an
amended complaint with respect to those portions not dismissed
with prejudice. On June 16, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a notice of
intent not to file an amended complaint but to proceed directly to
an appeal of the Court's decision dismissing the consolidated
complaint. As a result, the court entered judgment dismissing the
consolidated complaint with prejudice on June 27, 2016. Lead
plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals on July 26, 2016.  Lead plaintiff's opening brief is due
on December 2, 2016.

Although management believes that this appeal lacks merit and
intends to defend against it vigorously, the Company says there
are uncertainties inherent in any litigation and the Company
cannot predict the outcome. 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
attorney's fees.

Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the treatment of obesity.  The Company's sole product,
Contrave, is approved in the United States by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and
increased physical activity for chronic weight management in
adults with an initial body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater
(obese), or 27 kg/m2 or greater (overweight) in the presence of at
least one weight-related comorbid condition.


PACIFIC COAST: Final Hearing on "Welch" Suit Deal Set for March 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of the
settlement in the lawsuit filed by Thomas Welch is set for
March 2, 2017, Pacific Coast Oil Trust 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 July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
against the Trust, Pacific Coast Energy Company LP, PCEC (GP) LLC,
Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of
PCEC (GP) LLC and others.

The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the
Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the
prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that
became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the
prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the
plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under
the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration
statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts
and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on
certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court
may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and
makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are
made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch and
Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action.

On December 8, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
consolidation action, and the Court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement on September 14, 2016. A
hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of the
settlement and enter final judgment in this action is set for
March 2, 2017.

The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against
any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the
consolidation action.

The Pacific Coast Oil Trust is a statutory trust formed in January
2012 under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a Trust
Agreement among its sponsor, Pacific Coast Energy Company LP, as
trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as
Trustee, and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Delaware
Trustee.  The Trust was created to acquire and hold Net profits
interest and royalty interests in certain oil and natural gas
properties located in California for the benefit of the Trust
unitholders pursuant to an agreement among PCEC, the Trustee and
the Delaware Trustee.


PETROQUEST ENERGY: "Lee" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Philip Lee, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PetroQuest Energy, LLC and WSGP Gas
Producing, LLC, Case No. 16-CJ-51, was removed from the Hughes
County District Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma (Muskogee). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 6:16-cv-00516-KEW to the proceeding.

PetroQuest Energy, LLC operates an energy company engaged in the
exploration, development and production of oil and gas reserves in
Texas and Louisiana.

WSGP Gas Producing, LLC operates a natural gas production business
at 700 Universe Boulevard North Palm Beach, FL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
      THE LANIER LAW FIRM
      12 E California Ave, Ste 200
      Oklahoma City, OK 73104
      Telephone: (405) 820-4401
      E-mail: reagan.bradford@lanierlawfirm.com

The Defendant PetroQuest Energy, LLC is represented by:

      Mark D. Christiansen, Esq.
      MCAFEE & TAFT
      211 N Robinson, 10th Flr
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7103
      Telephone: (405) 235-9621
      Facsimile: (405) 228-7435
      E-mail: mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com

The Defendant WSGP Gas Producing, LLC is represented by:

      Charles V. Knutter, Esq.
      L. Mark Walker, Esq.
      CROWE & DUNLEVY
      324 N Robinson Ave, Ste 100
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102
      Telephone: (405) 235-7702
      Facsimile: (405) 272-5234
      E-mail: chuck.knutter@crowedunlevy.com
              mark.walker@crowedunlevy.com

PETSMART INC: "Smadja" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Lea M. Smadja, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Petsmart, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. BC642085 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 29, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

Petsmart, Inc. is a specialty pet retailer of services and
solutions for the lifetime needs of pets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ophir J. Bitton, Esq.
      Cesar G. Lachica Jr., Esq.
      BITTON & ASSOCIATES
      7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90046
      Telephone: (310) 356-1006
      Facsimile: (818)524-1224

POWERSCOUT INC: Faces "Stacy" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PowerScout, Inc. The
case is styled Rebecca Stacy, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PowerScout, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02878-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal., Nov. 23,
2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.

PowerScout provides an online service that enables residential
customers in California to find and compare the best deals on
clean energy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


RAWLINGS CO: Wurtz Appeals E.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Meghan Wurtz filed an appeal from a District Court
order, dated November 17, 2016, relating to the lawsuit titled
Wurtz v. The Rawlings Company, LLC, Case No. 12-cv-1182, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central
Islip).

The appellate case is captioned as Wurtz v. The Rawlings Company,
LLC, Case No. 16-3911, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on July 31,
2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a
decision that New York State's anti-subrogation law, which
extinguished the rights of private health insurers to seek
reimbursement for medical benefits paid out of a tort settlement,
was not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) and that the law was found applicable to health insurers
providing ERISA coverage.

The class action lawsuit was originally filed in New York State
Supreme Court but was removed by Defendants to federal court where
the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim based on ERISA preemption.  On appeal,
the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the District
Court's decision and remanded the matter to the District Court in
holding that the plaintiffs' claims were not subject to complete
ERISA preemption.  The Supreme Court's decision to decline to hear
Defendants' appeal of the Court of Appeal's decision allows for
the class action lawsuit to proceed.  The class action alleges
violations of New York State's anti-subrogation law by insurers
who recovered for medical benefits paid on behalf of injured
plaintiffs from their tort settlements. (Meghan Wurtz, Mindy
Burnovski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. The Rawlings Company, LLC, Oxford Health Plans
(N.Y.), Inc., UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Defendants; No. 13-
1695-cv; in the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit).

Plaintiff-Appellant Meghan Wurtz is represented by:

          Steven J. Harfenist, Esq.
          HARFENIST, KRAUT & PERLSTEIN LLP
          3000 Marcus Avenue
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Telephone: (516) 355-9600
          E-mail: sharfenist@hkplaw.com

               - and -

          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
          185 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213-8311
          E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com

Defendant-Appellee The Rawlings Company, LLC, is represented by:

          Richard W. Cohen, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
          1 North Broadway
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: rcohen@lowey.com

Defendants-Appellees Oxford Health Plans (NY), Incorporated, and
UnitedHealth Group are represented by:

          Brian D. Boyle, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5327
          E-mail: bboyle@omm.com


RAZZLE DAZZLE: "Romero" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
ROSA ROMERO and LUIS MATEO, and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. RAZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP, INC, a
Florida Profit Corporation; RAZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP II, INC, a
Florida Profit Corporation; RAZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP MIDTOWN, INC,
a Florida Profit Corporation; RAZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP SOBE, INC,
a Florida Profit Corporation; RAZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP SOMI, INC,
a Florida Profit Corporation; and ELENA LINARES, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-24873-RNS (S.D. Fla., Nov. 22, 2016),
seeks damages exceeding $15,000 excluding attorney's fees or costs
for unpaid wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

Rosa Romero performed work for Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from June 2011 through April 2015. The Plaintiff worked in excess
of 40 hours per week and was paid at an hourly rate of
approximately $600 weekly, but was not paid at the proper overtime
rate.

RAZZLEDAZZLE is an old-fashioned barbershop specializing in
haircuts, hot lather shaves and shoe shines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005


RELIABLE PAPER: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Reliable Paper, Inc. and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case
No. BC641822 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 23, 2016), seeks to end
the Defendants' practice of recording telephone communications
without the consent of all parties.

Reliable Paper, Inc. was founded in 2000. The company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of wrapping and other
coarse paper products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      David W. Reid, Esq.
      Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
      PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
      A Professional Corporation
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattomeys.com
              dreid@pacifictrialattomeys.com
              vknowles@pacifictrialattomeys.com

REPUBLIC SERVICES: "Taylor" Suit Moved from D. Ariz. to S.D. Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CHARLES TAYLOR, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02760,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Corpus Christi). The Texas Southern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00502 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members alleged that
Republic failed to pay the proper amount of overtime in accordance
with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for the three-year period
preceding the filing of this complaint and through the final
disposition of this matter.

Republic Services provides non-hazardous solid waste collection,
transfer, disposal, recycling, and energy services in the United
States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Austin W Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren Elizabeth Braddy, Esq.
          William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
          Anderson2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com
                  Clif@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Zachary Evan Mushkatel, Esq.
          MUSHKATEL & BECKER PLLC
          15249 N 99th Ave., Ste. A
          Sun City, AZ 85351-1964
          Telephone: (623) 889 0691
          Facsimile: (623) 974 4739

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alec R Hillbo, Esq.
          Mark G Kisicki, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
          SMOAK & STEWART PC - PHOENIX, AZ
          2415 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 800
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 778 3700
          Facsimile: (602) 778 3750

               - and -

          Esteban Shardonofsky, Esq.
          Kara L Goodwin, Esq.
          Noah A Finkel, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          700 Milam Street, Suite 1400
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 225 2300
          Facsimile: (713) 821 0657
          E-mail: sshardonofsky@seyfarth.com
                  nfinkel@seyfarth.com


RESORT EXPRESS: Brueningsen Appeals D. Utah Ruling to 10th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jeffrey Brueningsen, Aldis Barsketis, Steve Simchen,
Richard Sorensen, Thomas H. Steed, Jr., Joe Metcalfe and Michael
Power filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to their
lawsuit entitled Brueningsen, et al. v. Resort Express, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:12-CV-00843-DN, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah - Salt Lake City.

The lawsuit arose from alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Brueningsen, et al. v. Resort
Express, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-4198, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and entry of
      appearance are due on November 30, 2016, for Aldis
      Barsketis, Jeffrey Brueningsen, Joe Metcalfe, Michael
      Power, Steve Simchen, Richard Sorensen and Thomas H. Steed
      Jr.; and

   -- Notice of appearance is due on November 30, 2016, for Park
      City Transportation, Inc., Premier Transportation, Inc.,
      and Resort Express, Inc.

Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFREY BRUENINGSEN is represented by:

          Joseph M. Stultz, Esq.
          WRONA LAW FIRM
          1745 Sidewinder Drive
          Park City, UT 84060
          Telephone: (801) 676-5260
          E-mail: stultz@wdlawfirm.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants ALDIS BARSKETIS, STEVE SIMCHEN, RICHARD
SORENSEN, THOMAS H. STEED, JR., JOE METCALFE and MICHAEL POWER, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Jarom B. Bangerter, Esq.
          Steve Gordon, Esq.
          Joseph M. Stultz, Esq.
          WRONA LAW FIRM
          1745 Sidewinder Drive
          Park City, UT 84060
          Telephone: (801) 676-5260
          E-mail: bangerter@wdlawfirm.com
                  gordon@wronalawfirm.com
                  stultz@wdlawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees RESORT EXPRESS, INC., PARK CITY
TRANSPORTATION, INC., and PREMIER TRANSPORTATION, INC., are
represented by:

          Michael E. Blue, Esq.
          Scott A. Hagen, Esq.
          Liesel Brand Stevens, Esq.
          RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER
          36 South State Street, Suite 1400
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-1500
          E-mail: mblue@rqn.com
                  shagen@rqn.com
                  lstevens@rqn.com


RGS FINANCIAL: Faces "Lebovitch" Suit in E.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RGS Financial, Inc.
The case is entitled Zoctan Lebovitch, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. RGS
Financial, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06550 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 24, 2016).

RGS provides BPO and ARM Services from third-party debt collection
to customer retention and care.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RINGCENTRAL INC: Supply Pro Amends Complaint in TCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC, has filed an amended complaint in its
lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, RingCentral, 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.

On April 21, 2016, Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC (SPS) filed a putative
class action against the Company in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California (Court), alleging
common law conversion and violations of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) arising from fax cover sheets used
by the Company's customers when sending facsimile transmissions
over the Company's system (Lawsuit).  SPS sought statutory
damages, costs, attorneys' fees and an injunction in connection
with its TCPA claim, and unspecified damages and punitive damages
in connection with its conversion claim.

On July 6, 2016, the Company filed a Petition for Expedited
Declaratory Ruling before the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), requesting that the FCC issue a ruling clarifying certain
portions of its regulations promulgated under TCPA at issue in the
Lawsuit (Petition).  On July 8, 2016, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the Lawsuit in its entirety, along with a collateral
motion to dismiss or stay the Lawsuit pending a ruling by the FCC
on the Company's Petition.

On October 7, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and gave SPS 20 days to amend its complaint.  The Court
concurrently dismissed the Company's motion to dismiss or stay as
moot.  SPS filed its amended complaint on October 27, 2016,
alleging the same theories and claims.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself and
anticipates filing another motion to dismiss and a collateral
motion to dismiss or stay the case pending resolution of the FCC
Petition.  Litigation is inherently uncertain, however, and it is
too early in this proceeding to predict the outcome of this
Lawsuit.  Based on the information known by the Company as of the
date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to
the preparation of the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of
any such loss or range of loss that may occur.

RingCentral, Inc., is a provider of software-as-a-service (SaaS)
solutions for business communications and collaboration.  The
Company was incorporated in California in 1999 and was
reincorporated in Delaware on September 26, 2013.


RITMO LATINO: Faces "Ballesteros" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Ballesteros, an individual, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Ritmo Latino Wireless LLC and Does 1
to 50, inclusive, Case No. BC642298 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 29,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Ritmo Latino Wireless LLC operates T-Mobile store locations in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 990-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 990-2900
      E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
              dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com


RITZ CARLTON: Faces "Vizcaino" Suit in New York Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been brought against Ritz Carlton Hotel
Company in the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is captioned VIZCAINO,
DIANA INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiff, v. RITZ CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C., D/B/A RITZ-
CARLTON WESTCHESTER, RENAISSANCE HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC AND LOUIS R.
CAPPELLI, the Defendant, Case No. 607281/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov.
23, 2016).

Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company is the parent company to the luxury
hotel chain, The Ritz-Carlton Hotels. Ritz-Carlton operates 91
luxury hotels and resorts in cities around the world and resorts
in 30 countries and territories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Rd, Ste 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550

The Defendant is represented by:

          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          900 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 497 6848


S-L DISTRIBUTION: Faces Jonathan Scheurer Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against S-L
Distribution, Inc.

The case is captioned Jonathan Scheurer, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. S-L Distribution,
Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-08783 (D.N.J., November 28, 2016).

S-L Distribution, Inc. owns and operates a confectionery company
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin m. Klein, Esq.
      MARKS & KLEIN, LLP
      63 Riverside Avenue
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (732) 747-7100
      E-mail: justin@marksklein.com

         - and -

      Marisa Rauchway Sverdlov, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MARISA RAUCHWAY SVERDLOV, LLC
      51 JFK Parkway
      First Floor West
      Short Hills, NJ 07078
      Telephone: (973) 826-4098
      E-mail: mrauchway@rauchwaylaw.com


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Oklahoma Court Reopens Lanier Trust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit filed by Duane & Virginia
Lanier Trust was reopened allowing the plaintiffs to pursue their
claims against the non-debtor defendants, and against SandRidge
Energy, Inc., as a nominal defendant only, according to SandRidge
Mississippian Trust I'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 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge
and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge,
among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation"). The
complaint asserts a variety of federal securities claims on behalf
of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of the Trust
in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April
7, 2011, and (b) purchasers of common units of SandRidge
Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 17, 2012.  The claims are based on
allegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, including the
Trust are responsible for making false and misleading statements,
and omitting material information, concerning a variety of
subjects, including oil and gas reserves. The plaintiffs seek
class certification, an order rescinding the Trust's initial
public offering and an unspecified amount of damages, plus
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 20, 2016, the Court entered an Administrative Closing Order
terminating the action, without prejudice to the rights of the
parties to reopen the proceeding for good cause shown, within
thirty days after the termination of SandRidge's bankruptcy
proceedings.

On October 27, 2016, the Court entered an order reopening this
proceeding and allowing the plaintiffs to pursue their claims
against the non-debtor defendants, and against SandRidge as a
nominal defendant only.

Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the Trust says it may
incur expenses in defending the litigation, and any such expenses
may increase the Trust's administrative expenses significantly.
The Trust will estimate and financially provide for potential
losses that may arise out of litigation to the extent that such
losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant
judgment will be required in making any such estimates and any
final liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially
different than any estimates. The Trust is currently unable to
assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of any
potential loss the Trust may incur in connection with the
Securities Litigation, and has not established any reserves
relating to the Securities Litigation. The Trust may withhold
estimated amounts from future distributions to cover future costs
associated with the litigation if determined necessary. The Trust
has not yet fully analyzed any rights it may have to indemnities
that may be applicable or any claims it may make in connection
with the Securities Litigation.

SandRidge Mississippian Trust I is a statutory trust formed under
the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a trust agreement, as
amended and restated, by and among SandRidge Energy, Inc., as
Trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as
Trustee, and The Corporation Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee.
The Trust holds Royalty Interests in specified oil and natural gas
properties located in the Mississippian formation in Alfalfa,
Garfield, Grant and Woods counties in Oklahoma.


SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Fritchman Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW FRITCHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. SCHLUMBERGER TECH CORP., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01752-CRE (W.D. Pa., Nov. 22, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the
Defendant under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (the Ohio Wage Act), and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act (OPPA), and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff, and other workers like him, worked for Defendant
performing largely manual labor type job duties, typically worked
in excess of 40 hours a week, and worked as Measurement While
Drilling (MWD) employees. In violation of the PMWA, the Ohio Acts,
and the FLSA, SLB denied overtime to all of its oilfield
employees.

Schlumberger provides technology for reservoir characterization,
drilling, production, and processing to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766 1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766 0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


SELIP & STYLIANOU: Faces "Warman" Suit in E.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Selip & Stylianou,
LLP. The case is captioned Rivka Warman, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Selip &
Stylianou, LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06548 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 24, 2016).

Selip & Stylianou is a debt collector firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SETON FAMILY: Faces "Stepp" Suit Over Unpaid Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Stepp, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Seton Family Of Hospitals, Ascension Health Alliance,
Seton Healthcare d/b/a Seton Highland Lakes Hospital, Seton
Medical Center Austin, Seton Medical Center Hays, Seton Medical
Center Williamson, Seton Northwest Hospital, Seton Shoal Creek
Hospital, Seton Smithville Regional Hospital, Seton Southwest
Hospital, University Medical Center Brackenridge, Case No. 1:16-
cv-01251 (W.D. Tex., November 23, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to properly compensate non-exempt nurses
for work performed during meal breaks.

The Defendants operate a chain of hospitals that provide
healthcare services in Austin, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: gkennedy@KennedyHodges.com

         - and -

      Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
      KENNEDYHODGES, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: bsosamorris@kennedyhodges.com

SHIRE LLC: Faces "Picone" Suit in Mass. Over Guanfacine
-------------------------------------------------------
Tina Picone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Shire U.S., Inc., Shire, LLC, Actavis Elizabeth LLC,
Actavis Inc., and John Does 1-100, ABC Corps 1-100, inclusive,
Case No. 1:16-cv-12396-ADB (D. Mass., November 23, 2016), is an
action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a proximate
result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the designing, developing, manufacturing,
distributing, labeling, advertising, marketing, promoting, and
selling of guanfacine hydrochloride (guanfacine).

Guanfacine hydrochloride (guanfacine) is a prescription medication
for pediatric and adolescent patients to treat attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder.

The Defendants develop, manufacture, and sell brand and generic
pharmaceutical products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen H. Galebach, Esq.
      GALEBACH LAW OFFICE
      9-11 Touro Avenue
      Medford, MA 02155
      Telephone: (617) 429-1966
      E-mail: steve@galebachlaw.com

         - and -

      Allan Kanner, Esq.
      Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
      Marshall Perkins, Esq.
      Layne Hilton, Esq.
      KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
      701 Camp Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 524-5777
      E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
              c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
              m.perkins@kanner-law.com
              l.hilton@kanner-law.com

         - and -

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


SHIRE LLC: Faces "Richard" Suit in Fla. Over Guanfacine
-------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Richard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Shire LLC, Shire U.S., Inc., Actavis Elizabeth LLC and
Actavis Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-24907-JEM (S.D. Fla., November 23,
2016), is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a
proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the designing, developing,
manufacturing, distributing, labeling, advertising, marketing,
promoting, and selling of guanfacine hydrochloride (guanfacine).

Guanfacine hydrochloride (guanfacine) is a prescription medication
for pediatric and adolescent patients to treat attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder.

The Defendants develop, manufacture, and sell brand and generic
pharmaceutical products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley Winston, Esq.
      WINSTON LAW FIRM
      2924 Davie Road, Suite 201
      Davie, FL 33314
      Telephone: (954) 475-9666
      Facsimile: (954) 475-2279
      E-mail: bwinston@winstonlaw.com

         - and -

      Allan Kanner, Esq.
      Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
      Marshall Perkins, Esq.
      Layne Hilton, Esq.
      KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
      701 Camp Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 524-5777
      E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
              c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
              m.perkins@kanner-law.com
              l.hilton@kanner-law.com

         - and -

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

SPEEDWAY LLC: Faces "Teggerdine" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Speedway, LLC.

The case is captioned Kara Teggerdine, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Speedway, LLC, Case No. 8:16-
cv-03280-JDW-TGW (M.D. Fla., November 28, 2016).

Speedway, LLC is the operator of a combination of gas
station/convenience stores that is based in Enon, Ohio,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
      OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC
      Suite 225, 2018 Eastwood Road
      Wilmington, NC 28403
      Telephone: (910) 292-6676
      Facsimile: (888) 316-3489
      E-mail: jean@jsmlawoffice.com

         - and -

      John Allen Yanchunis Sr., Esq.
      Marcio William Valladares, Esq.
      Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      7th Floor, One Tampa City Center
      201 N Franklin Street
      Tampa, FL 33602-5157
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
              mvalladares@forthepeople.com
              pbarthle@forthepeople.com


SQUARE INC: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "White" Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert E. White filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Robert White v. Square, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04539-JST,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco.

The lawsuit alleges violation of Civil Rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert White v. Square, Inc.,
Case No. 16-17137, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 29, 2016;

   -- Appellant Robert E. White's opening brief is due on
      March 1, 2017;

   -- Appellee Square, Inc.'s answering brief is due on March 31,
      2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT E. WHITE, an individual, and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          William N. McGrane, Esq.
          MCGRANE LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 292-4807
          E-mail: william.mcgrane@mcgranepc.com

Defendant-Appellee SQUARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Colleen Bal, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          One Market Plaza
          Spear Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 947-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 947-2099
          E-mail: cbal@wsgr.com

               - and -

          David H. Kramer, Esq.
          Sara E. Rowe, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300
          Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
          E-mail: dkramer@wsgr.com
                  srowe@wsgr.com


TARGET CORP: Rojas Appeals From C.D California Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Erendidad Rojas, Ester Rojas and Antonia Lopez filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Erendidad
Rojas, et al. v. Target Corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-01229-AG-
JCG, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs assert labor-related claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Erendidad Rojas, et al. v.
Target Corporation, Case No. 16-80170, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners ERENDIDAD ROJAS, ESTER ROJAS and ANTONIA
LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others
employees similarly situated, are represented by:

          Richard Edward Quintilone, II, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael David Singer, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101-5305
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com

Defendant-Respondent TARGET CORPORATION is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          55 Second Street, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com


TELENAV INC: Defends "Gergetz" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Telenav, Inc., is defending a putative class action lawsuit
initiated by Nathan Gergetz, 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 July 28, 2016, Nathan Gergetz filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that Telenav violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, or TCPA. The complaint purports to be filed on
behalf of a class, and it alleges that Telenav caused unsolicited
text messages to be sent to the plaintiff from July 6, 2016 to
July 26, 2016. Plaintiffs seek statutory and actual damages under
the TCPA law, attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and an
injunction to prevent any future violations.

Due to the preliminary nature of this matter and uncertainties
relating to litigation, the Company says it is unable at this time
to estimate the effects of this lawsuit on its financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Telenav, Inc., was incorporated in September 1999 in the state of
Delaware.  The Company provides connected car and location-based
platform services.  The Company's automotive and mobile navigation
platform allows it to deliver enhanced location-based services to
auto manufacturers, developers, and end users through various
distribution channels.


TENET HEALTHCARE: "Pennington" Suit Moved from Cal. to N.D. Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Nicholas Pennington, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Trevor Fetter, Daniel J Cancelmi,
and Biggs C Porter, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-07510, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas). The Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-03260-G to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to Senior Judge A. Joe Fish.

Tenet Healthcare is a multinational investor-owned healthcare
services company based in Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
          355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785 2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226 4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


TESORO REFINING: Faces "Soratorio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Onofre Soratorio, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company,
LLC, BP Pipelines North America, Inc., and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. BC642295 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 29, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants provide third-party logistical and oil refining
services, which include but are not limited to oil refining
services, distribution services, as well as logistic services for
inventory management, pickup and shipping/transportation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq
      Lindsay Veronika Salk, Esq.
      Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
      SOLOUKII SAVOY, LLP
      316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
      Los Angeles, CA 90012
      Telephone: (213)814-4940
      Facsimile: (213)814-2550
      E-mail: grant@soloukisavoy.com
              lindsay@soloukisavoy.com


THERANOS INC: "Colman" Action Alleges Securities Fraud
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Colman and Hilary Taubman-Dye, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Theranos, Inc.,
Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh Balwani, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-
06822, (N.D. Cal., November 28, 2016), seeks restitution,
rescission, damages, including punitive damages, disgorgement,
pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and such
other and further relief resulting from fraudulent concealment,
negligent misrepresentation, securities fraud under California Law
and in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

Theranos is a private life-sciences company that claimed to
innovative methods for drawing and testing blood and interpreting
patient data to improve outcomes and lower health care costs.
However, Defendants later admit that Theranos was relying on
traditional machines made by other companies to run blood tests,
rather than using its own proprietary analyzers. October 5, 2016,
Theranos announced it was closing all of its clinical laboratories
and patient testing centers and laying off approximately 40% of
its employees.

Colman purchased Theranos securities in September 2013 through a
member interest in Lucas Venture Group XI, LLC, and lost
substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
      Peter E. Borkon, Esq.
      Nicholas S. Singer, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510) 725-3000
      Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
      Email: reed@hbsslaw.com
             peterb@hbsslaw.com
             nsinger@hbsslaw.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Katz" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Katz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Transworld Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-06571
(E.D.N.Y., November 28, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Transworld Systems, Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies and dental companies.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRI-STATE WATER: Home Depot Appeals Decision in "Bauer" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Incorporated, filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Michael Bauer and Stacey Bauer,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Tri-
State Water Treatment, Inc., Tri-State Water Treatment, Inc., Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Aquion Inc. doing business as: Rainsoft,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00419-MJR-RJD, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.

The appellate case is captioned as Tri-State Water Treatment, Inc.
v. Home Depot U.S.A., Incorporate, et al., Case No. 16-3938, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was
originally filed in the Madison County Court (Case No. 15-SC-
1407), and was removed from the District Court.  Home Depot
previously filed an appeal from a ruling in the lawsuit.

On Sept. 29, 2016, Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan entered an order
granting Defendants'/Counterclaim Plaintiffs' motion to remand,
and remanded the case to the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison
County, Illinois.  The Court construed Counterclaim Defendant Home
Depot's motion to strike as an unacceptable sur-reply and ordered
that motion stricken.  The judge said all future hearings in this
matter, including the January 12, 2018 final pre-trial conference
and the January 29, 2018 jury trial are cancelled.

In view of Home Depot's first appeal, Judge Reagan on Oct. 17
entered an order staying the remand order pending receipt of the
Plaintiffs' brief and an ultimate decision on the request to stay.

Plaintiff TRI-STATE WATER TREATMENT, INC., is represented by:

          Mark S. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON, SCHNEIDER & FERRELL
          212 N. Main Street
          Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
          Telephone: (573) 335-3300

Defendant-Appellant HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INCORPORATED, is
represented by:

          S. Stewart Haskins, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4687
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: shaskins@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Russell Kenneth Scott, Esq.
          GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, P.C.
          12 Wolf Creek Drive
          Belleville, IL 62226-0000
          Telephone: (618) 257-7308
          Facsimile: (618) 257-7353
          E-mail: rks@greensfelder.com

Defendants-Appellees MICHAEL BAUER, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, and STACEY BAUER, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Sean K. Cronin, Esq.
          DONOVAN ROSE NESTER, P.C.
          201 S. Illinois
          Belleville, IL 62220
          Telephone: (618) 212-6500
          Facsimile: (618) 212-6501
          E-mail: scronin@drnpc.com

               - and -

          Troy E. Walton, Esq.
          SCHOEN, WALTON, TELKEN & FOSTER, LLC
          241 N. Main Street
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 307-9880
          E-mail: twalton@schoenwalton.com

Defendant AQUION, INC., doing business as RAINSOFT, is represented
by:

          Troy A. Bozarth, Esq.
          HEPLER BROOM, LLC
          130 N. Main Street
          P.O. Box 510
          Edwardsville, IL 62025-0000
          Telephone: (618) 656-0184
          E-mail: tbozarth@heplerbroom.com


TWILIO INC: Discovery in "Flowers" Privacy Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit commenced by Angela Flowers in
California, according to Twilio Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On February 18, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Alameda County Superior Court in California, entitled
Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc. The complaint alleges that the
Company's products permit the interception, recording and
disclosure of communications at a customer's request and are in
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The complaint
seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages. On May 27,
2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the complaint. On August 2,
the court issued an order denying the demurrer in part and granted
it in part, with leave to amend by August 18, 2016 to address any
claims under California's Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff
opted not to amend the complaint.

Discovery has already begun, and will continue until August 2017,
when the plaintiff must file their motion for class certification.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit and
believes it has meritorious defenses to each.  The Company adds
that it is too early in these matters to reasonably predict the
probability of the outcomes or to estimate ranges of possible
losses.

Twilio Inc. was incorporated in the state of Delaware in 2008. The
Company provides a Cloud Communications Platform that enables
developers to build, scale and operate communications within
software applications through the cloud primarily as a pay-as-you-
go service.  The Company's product offerings fit three basic
categories: Programmable Voice, Programmable Messaging and
Programmable Video. The Company also provides use case products,
such as a two-factor authentication solution.


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Plans to Seek Rehearing in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ubiquiti Networks, 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 plans to file a
petition for rehearing in connection with the Ninth Circuit's
ruling in the consolidated securities lawsuit.

Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., certain of
its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering, alleging claims under U.S. securities laws. On
January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint. On March 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting a
motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Following the
plaintiffs' decision not to file an amended complaint, on April
16, 2014, the court ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit with
prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the
other defendants, and against the plaintiffs. On May 15, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of the
court.

The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on August 10, 2016. On
October 24, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion,
reaffirming the district court's dismissal of the alleged
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and reversing the district court's dismissal of the
alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

The Company plans to file a petition for rehearing with the Ninth
Circuit and to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The
Company says there can be no assurance that the Company will
prevail. The Company cannot currently estimate the possible loss,
if any, that it may experience in connection with this litigation.

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries develop
high performance networking technology for service providers and
enterprises.


UNIFIED GROCERS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerson Jimenez, Frank Bucio and John Espejo, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Unified Grocers, Inc.,
Alta-Dena Certified Dairy, LLC, Dean Foods Company, Dean Foods
Company of California, LLC, Teamsters Local Union No. 630, and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC642244 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
November 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to provide meal and rest periods, unpaid minimum wages and
overtime wages, and unreimbursed business expenses.

The Defendants operate a retailer-owned wholesale grocery
cooperative that supplies independent supermarkets in the Western
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matem, Esq.
      Tagore Subramaniam, Esq.
      Kayvon Sabourian, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310)531-1901
      E-mail: info@maternlawgroup.com


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Rabbiner" Suit Over Coinsurance Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin Rabbiner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Unitedhealth Group Incorporated, United
Healthcare Services, Inc., Unitedhealthcare Inc., Unitedhealthcare
Insurance Company, Optum, Inc., and Optumrx, Inc., Case No. 0:16-
cv-03996 (D. Minn., November 23, 2016), is an action for damages
as a result of the Defendants' practice of collecting from the
dispensing pharmacy the portion of the patient's required
"copayment" ("copay") or "coinsurance" payment that is not
necessary to cover the cost of the prescription drug.

The Defendants operate a healthcare company that offers a spectrum
of insurance and medical products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 596-4097
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
              hmsilton@locklaw.com
              kgmarttila@locklaw.com


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Watson" Suit Over Coinsurance Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Watson, for herself and all others similarly situated v.
Optumrx, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 8:16-cv-02106 (C.D. Cal., November 23, 2016),
is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' practice
of collecting from the dispensing pharmacy the portion of the
patient's required "copayment" ("copay") or "coinsurance" payment
that is not necessary to cover the cost of the prescription drug.

Optumrx, Inc. is a pharmacy benefits manager with its principal
place of business in Irvine, California.

United Healthcare Insurance Company operates a healthcare company
that offers a spectrum of insurance and medical products and
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq.
      Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
      1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Fl.
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 447-7060
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
              ekallas@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Henry Quillen, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
      159 Middle Street, Suite 2C
      Portsmouth, NH 03801
      Telephone: (603) 294-1591
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: hquillen@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
      355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (310) 684-2504
      Facsimile: (855) 274-1888
      E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com


UNITED STATES: Sued in Fla. Over Improper Charges of PACER Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THEODORE D'APUZZO, P.A., Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-62769-RNS (S.D. Fla.,
Nov. 22, 2016), seeks return of all funds improperly paid,
exacted, or taken from them in contravention of the E-Government
Act and related policies and procedures.

The case is a class action brought on behalf of users of the
Public Access to Court Electronic Records system (PACER), an
electronic system employed by federal courts to provide the public
with access to court records, who were improperly charged to
access judicial opinions.

According to the plain language of PACER'S Electronic Public
Access Fee Schedule, available at PACER's website
https://www.pacer.gov/ (Fee Schedule), "No fee is charged for
access to judicial opinions". That is, PACER users are meant to
have free access to judicial opinions. The policy, which has been
in place since at least 2005, stems from an explicit directive
contained in the E-Government Act of 2002, the law that gave rise
to PACER, requiring all federal courts, including district and
bankruptcy courts, to provide [a]ccess to the substance of all
written opinions issued by the court.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicole W. Giuliano, Esq.
          GIULIANO LAW, P.A.
          500 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1710
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 848 2940
          Facsimile: (954) 848 2941
          E-mail: nicole@giulianolaw.com
                  service@giulianolaw.com

               - and -

          Morgan Weinstein, Esq.
          VAN NESS LAW FIRM, PLC
          1239 East Newport Center Drive, Suite 110
          Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
          Telephone: (954) 571 2031
          E-mail: MWeinstein@vanlawfl.com
                  pleadings@vanlawfl.com


UNITED STATES: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Johnson" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Johnson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled David Johnson v. Jacob Lew, et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-02233, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The appellate case is captioned as David Johnson v. Jacob Lew, et
al., Case No. 16-3907, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript information sheet was due by November 29, 2016;
      and

   -- Fee or In Forma Pauperis forms were due on November 29,
      2016, for Appellant David M. Johnson.

The Seventh Circuit Court Clerk stated that the following are
those parties to this cause as reflected on the District Court
docket, yet are not reflected on the Appellate docket/caption for
administrative purposes: APPELLEES: James M. Johnson, Lynn Ganz,
Patrick Wozek, Fred Savaglio, Robert Trzakus, Darlene Mcvey and
Unknown Defendants.

The Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID M. JOHNSON, an individual; and all
others similarly situated, appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees JACOB J. LEW, Secretary Department of the
Treasury, SERGIO ARELLANO, SUSAN J. KASS, DAVID OYLER and LARRY G.
KOTTKE are represented by:

          Prashant Kolluri, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          219 S. Dearborn Street, 5th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604-0000
          Telephone: (312) 886-9085
          Facsimile: (312) 886-4073
          E-mail: prashant.kolluri@usdoj.gov


US SECURITY: Faces "Woodall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carman Woodall and Jena Barnett, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated employees v. U.S. Security Associates,
Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00473 (E.D. Tenn., November 23, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

U.S. Security Associates, Inc. provides uniformed security
services, consulting and investigations, and specialized security
solutions in the United States.

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 -

      James M. Johnson, Esq.
      620 Lindsey Street, Suite 210
      Chattanooga, TN 37403
      Telephone: (423) 648-4093
      E-mail: jj@jamesmjohnsonatty.com


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Roberts" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Raymond M. Roberts filed an appeal from the District
Court's opinion and order, dated November 12, 2016, and the
District Court's judgment, dated November 14, 2016, entered in the
lawsuit entitled Roberts v. Weight Watchers International, Inc.,
Case No. 16-cv-913, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Jan. 7,
2016, the Plaintiff, an OnlinePlus member filed a putative class
action complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, asserting class claims for breach of
contract and violations of the New York General Business Law.  On
February 5, 2016, the Company removed the case to the District
Court.  On March 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, alleging that, as a result of the temporary glitches in
the Company's Web site and app in November and December 2015, the
Company has: (1) breached its Subscription Agreement with its
OnlinePlus members; and (2) engaged in deceptive acts and
practices in violation of Section 350 of the New York General
Business Law.  The Plaintiff is seeking unspecified actual,
punitive and statutory damages, as well as his attorneys' fees and
costs incurred in connection with this action.

The appellate case is captioned as Roberts v. Weight Watchers
International, Inc., Case No. 16-3865, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Raymond M. Roberts, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Samuel Kenneth Rosen, Esq.
          Daniella Quitt, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400
          E-mail: srosen@hfesq.com
                  dquitt@hfesq.com

Defendant-Appellee Weight Watchers International, Inc., is
represented by:

          Joseph G. Petrosinelli, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 12th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          E-mail: jpetrosinelli@wc.com


WELLS FARGO: "Weingarten" Suit Seeks Back Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
KIRK WEINGARTEN, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-12380-
KAR (D. Mass., Nov. 22, 2016), seeks all damages available under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including back wages for the
three-year period prior to filing this lawsuit and forward,
liquidated damages, legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay him time
and one-half his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
during each seven-day workweek. Specifically, Defendant failed to
include all remuneration required by the FLSA in calculating
Plaintiff and Collective Action Members' regular rates of pay,
and, consequently, their overtime rate of pay. Moreover, Defendant
required Plaintiff and Collective Action Members to work time for
which they were not compensated.

Wells Fargo is a provider of banking, mortgage, investing, credit
card, and insurance services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kesler T. Roberts, Esq.
          Post Office Box 20803
          Worcester, MA 01602
          Telephone: (774) 262 1699
          E-mail: kesroberts@mac.com

               - and -

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          Farsheed Fozouni, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521 3605
          Facsimile: (214) 520 1181
          E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com
                  marbuckl@baronbudd.com
                  ffozouni@baronbudd.com


WELLS FARGO: McDonald Appeals From W.D. Pa. Ruling to 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liane McDonald, in her capacity as the administratrix of the
estate of Patricia A. McDonald, deceased, filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Liane McDonald v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Case No. 2-16-cv-00264, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County to
the District Court.

The appellate case is captioned as Liane McDonald v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Case No. 16-4144, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant LIANE MCDONALD, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE
ADMINIATRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA A. MCDONALD, DECEASED,
AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS
(the "MCDonald Estate"), is represented by:

          Aurelius P. Robleto, Esq.
          ROBLETO LAW, PLLC
          Three Gateway Center
          401 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1306
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 925-8194
          Facsimile: (412) 346-1035
          E-mail: apr@robletolaw.com

Defendant-Appellee WELLS FARGO BANK NA is represented by:

          Akiesha R. Gilcrist, Esq.
          Laura A. Lange, Esq.
          Matthew Monsour, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          625 Liberty Avenue, 23rd Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 667-6000
          Facsimile: (412) 667-7961
          E-mail: agilcrist@mcguirewoods.com
                  llange@mcguirewoods.com
                  mmonsour@mcguirewoods.com


YAKIM JORDAN: Faces "Peacock" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yakim Manasseh
Jordan. The case is captioned Michael Ryan Peacock, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Yakim Manasseh Jordan, Case No. 1:16-cv-04353-CAP (N.D. Ga., Nov.
23, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Charles A. Pannell,
Jr.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Ryan Peacock, Esq.
          NEY HOFFECKER PEACOCK & HAYLE LLC
          1360 Peachtree Street, NE
          One Midtown Plaza, Suite 1010
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 760 7396
          Facsimile: (470) 225 6646
          E-mail: michael@nhphlaw.com


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Stern" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker &
Associates, P.C. The case is styled Rochel Stern on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Zwicker & Associates, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06549 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2016).

Zwicker & Associates is a law firm whose primary business function
is debt collection.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



                            *********

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  * * *