CAR_Public/170126.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Thursday, January 26, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 19



                            Headlines

1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Henry" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Bartolucci" Suit Over Contact Lens Prices
ABSOLUTE WEST: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Diaz" Suit Says
AC & APPLIANCES: "Zhang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ADVANCE STORES: Wins Prelim. Okay of "Whitehead" Class Settlement

AIRTOUCH CELLULAR: Sued Over Failure to Provide Rest & Meal Break
ALLSTATE INTERIOR: Faces "Alonzo" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
APPLE INC: Faces "Ceja" Suit in Cal. Over Lock-Out Device
ASSAULT AND BURGERY: Faces "Marin" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
ATKORE INTERNATIONAL: Wind Condominium Association Suit Dismissed

BARNES & NOBLE: March 14 Status Hearing in PIN Pad Litigation
BARNES & NOBLE: Cafe Managers' Class Actions Pending
BECTON DICKINSON: Class Action Appeal Underway
BLUE NILE: Faces "Hale" Suit Over Sale to Bain Capital Funds
BNP NY: Castro et al. Allege Violations of FLSA, NY Labor Laws

BOCCA NEW: "Bytyqi" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA, NY Labor Law
BSI FINANCIAL: Faces "Antoine" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida
BURGER BROTHERS: Benavidez et al. Sue Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
C & F FOODS: Faces "Vargas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CALIFORNIA, USA: Wade Seeks Certification of NOI Members Class

CERNER CORP: "Crawford" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA
CLARFIELD OKON: Seeks Final Approval of "Rojas" Suit Settlement
COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Loera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CONTINENTAL PARKING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Break
DAY & NITE: Faces "Dobler" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

DELTA APPAREL: California Wage and Hour Lawsuits Settled
DES MOINES REGISTER: Court Denies Epstein's Bid to Certify Class
DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock Suit in New York
DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Underway Blackrock Suit in California
DST SYSTEMS: "Ducharme" Suit Claims Breach of Duties Under ERISA

EMPIRE PARKING: Sued in Ga. Over Vehicle Immobilization Device
FIDELITY & GUARANTY: "Ludwick" Class Action Appeal Underway
FIFTH STREET: Feb. 16 Fairness Hearing on FSC Class Suit Deal
FIFTH STREET: FSC Proxy Litigation Now Concluded
FIFTH STREET: Feb. 16 Fairness Hearing on FSAM Class Action Deal

FLAT RATE: Faces "Djurdjevich" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
FOODLINER: Faces "Austin" Suit Over Failure to Provide Break
GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES: Faces Liberty Salad Suit in E.D. Pa.
HENIFF TRANSPORTATION: "Hernandez" Invokes FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws
HINT INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Product Advertisements

HRG GROUP: Paid $5.5MM in Legal Fees Related to "Cressy" Suit
HRG GROUP: Appeal in "Ludwick" Suit Underway
HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: 2 Shareholder Suits Dismissed
IFCO SYSTEMS: "Graham" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Engineers Fund Sues Over Lidocaine Prices

INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Defending Against "Trahan" Class Suit
JCB CLEANING: Faces "Jaramillo" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages
JOHNSON CONTROLS: "Wandel" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Settlement Reached in "Laufer" Suit
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Injunction Request in "Gumm" Suit Underway

KARDESH PETROLEUM: Faces "Figengul" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
KEMPER SPORTS: Faces "Lall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KEMPHARM INC: Seeks Removal of "Christians" Suit to Iowa Court
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces "Mukamal" Suit in E. Dist. of Pa.
LINCOLN PROPERTY: "Amos" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

LIONS GATE: Stipulation of Settlement Entered in "Levy" Suit
LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Class Certification Briefing Due May 2
LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss & Stay Discovery
LONGWOOD ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Rest Period
METROPOLITAN FIELD: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

NOVO NORDISK: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
NRA GROUP: Gadime Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
PARTNERS FOR PAYMENT: Class Certification Sought in "Ashley" Suit
PAYMENT DATA: Motion to Dismiss "McFarland" Suit Underway
PER MAR: Faces "Bessy" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Wis. Labor Law

PERFORMANCE FOOD: "Perez" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to C.D. Cal.
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: AA Suncoast Seeks to Certify Two Classes
QUALITY CARE: Pension Fund Suit in Early Stages
RAYMOND JAMES: Named as Defendant in Jay Peak Litigation
ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in Colorado Class Action Underway

SCI DIRECT: Certification of Class Sought in "Allard" Suit
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Suit Still Ongoing
SIGNET JEWELERS: 10,345 Employees Opt In to Collective Action
SIGNET JEWELERS: "Tapia" Class Suit Underway
SIGNET JEWELERS: Still Faces Dube and Spasov Shareholder Suits

SIMPLY MAC: Faces "Lotz" Suit for Misclassifying Store Managers
SPAR GROUP: Field Specialists' Class Suit Pending in California
TESORO REFINING: "Azpeitia" Sues Over Missed Breaks, No Paystubs
TEXTURA CORP: Kelsey Moves for Certification of Stockholders Class
TOWNHOUSE DINER: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law

UGI CORP: Motion for Written Opinion and for Rehearing Pending
UGI CORP: Indirect Purchasers' Appeal Remains Pending
UNION TURNPIKE: "Takhalov" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
UNITED ROAD: Faces "Champagne" Sued Over Excessive Towing Fees
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: "Condry" Claims Denial of Service for Women

US POSTAL: Greene et al. Seek to Recoup OT Wages Under FLSA
US STANDARD: Court Signs Accord Certifying "Echegoyen" Suit Class
VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Thomas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
WAWA INC: Gervasio et al. Allege Labor Law Violations
WGL HOLDINGS: Defending Class Suit Over Apartment Fire

WILD BLUE: "Brown" Suit Seeks Overtime, Deductions, Late Wages
WINDY CITY: Sued Over Excessive Medical Equipment Rental Fees
WOODMERE CLUB: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
ZILLOW GROUP: Has Settlement with Labor Department


                            *********


1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Henry" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Henry, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Vision Direct, Inc.
and Does 1-15, Case No. 1:17-cv-00117 (D. Col., January 18, 2017),
arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, maintain and make
artificial prices for contact lenses sold directly to consumers,
including online, in the United States and to District of Columbia
residents, specifically by rigging search engine advertising
auctions and preventing the dissemination of information.

The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the
business of making eye care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      Matthew E. Miller, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
      Washington, DC 20016
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813

         - and -

      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612)-339-6900
      E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
              rapeterson@locklaw.com


1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Bartolucci" Suit Over Contact Lens Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL J. BARTOLUCCI and EDWARD UNGVARSKY, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs.
1-800 CONTACTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00097 (D. Col.,
January 13, 2017), alleges that Defendants entered into horizontal
agreements among competitors to artificially raise, maintain, fix
and/or stabilize the prices for contact lenses sold online,
directly-to-consumers, throughout the United States.

1-800 Contacts, Inc. sells contact lenses and related products
over the internet throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Scott E. Gant, Esq.
     William A. Isaacson, Esq.
     Scott E. Gant, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     1401 New York Ave. NW
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 237-2727
     Fax: (202) 237-6131

        - and -

     Carl E. Goldfarb, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     401 East Los Olas Blvd, Suite 1200
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 356-0011
     Fax: (954) 356-0022


ABSOLUTE WEST: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Diaz" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogelio Diaz, Carlos A. Diaz Castellanos, and David Cruz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Absolute West LLC d/b/a Harbor Division, LLC, and Does 1-10, Case
No. BC647126 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 17, 2017), Case No. CCW-
CAC-D-307 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 17, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay its current and former truck
drivers in California separately and on an hourly basis for their
time spent taking their statutory rest periods and on their pre-
and post-trip inspections, loading/unloading time, time spent
cleaning their trucks, time spent fueling their trucks and on time
spent on work-related paperwork.

The Defendants own and operate a trucking and logistics company
that transacts millions of dollars of business by picking up
general freight at the Ports of Los Angeles and delivering
containers to customers throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig J. Ackerman, Esq.
      ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
      1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310)277-0614
      Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
      E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com


AC & APPLIANCES: "Zhang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Xiao Dong Zhang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. AC & Appliances Group, Corp. and Miao E. Wu,
Case No. 700873/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 18, 2017), seeks to
recover minimum wage, overtime wages, spread of hours
compensation, damages for failure to provide wage statements,
damages for failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring,
liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees for
violations of the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a residential building located at
131-31 Fowler Ave., Flushing, NY 11355.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADVANCE STORES: Wins Prelim. Okay of "Whitehead" Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JORDAN WHITEHEAD v. ADVANCE STORES
COMPANY INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-00250-RBD-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Roy B. Dalton, Jr., granted the parties' joint motion for
preliminary approval of settlement agreement and to amend caption
to add Janie Stapleton as a named plaintiff.

For purposes of settlement only, this settlement class is
provisionally certified under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure:

     All current and former Advance Stores Company, Inc. ("ASC")
     employees whose personal identification information was
     disclosed as a result of the phishing attack ASC suffered on
     March 7, 2016 ("Settlement Class").

The named Plaintiff Jordan Whitehead and forthcoming named
Plaintiff Janie Stapleton will be the Class Representatives of the
Settlement Class.  The Court also appoints the law firm of Whittel
& Melton, LLC, as Settlement Class Counsel, and appoints Dahl
Administration to serve as the Settlement Administrator.

The Court approves the form and content of the proposed notice
attached to the Settlement Agreement, and the notice procedure.

A final approval hearing will be held on May 15, 2017, at 9:30
a.m., to address: (a) whether to finally certify the Settlement
class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RlQugP2y


AIRTOUCH CELLULAR: Sued Over Failure to Provide Rest & Meal Break
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Veramend and Mathew Chesser, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public
v. Airtouch Cellular, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. BC647309 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 18, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide meal and rest
periods to its California non-exempt employees in violation of
California Labor Code.

Airtouch Cellular, Inc. provides wireless services throughout the
United States and has many retail stores throughout the United
States including approximately 150 stores in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David R. Markham, Esq.
      Maggie Realin, Esq.
      Michael J, Moiphew, Esq.
      Ben Travis, Esq.
      THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
      750 B Street, Suite 1950
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619)399-3995
      Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
      E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
              mrealin@markham-law.com
              mmorphew@markham-law.com
              btravis@markham-law.com

         - and -

      Walter Haines, Esq.
      UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
      5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Telephone: (888) 474-7242
      Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
      E-mail: waltsrhaines@yahoo.com


ALLSTATE INTERIOR: Faces "Alonzo" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO ALONZO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against ALLSTATE INTERIOR & EXTERIOR
CONTRACTORS, INC. (d/b/a ALLSTATE PAINTING), ALLSTATE PAINTING
CORP. (d/b/a ALLSTATE PAINTING), and NICHOLAS PALMIERI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00300 (S.D.N.Y., January 13, 2017),
was brought for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and for violations of the New York Labor Law, and
the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a construction company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: Faces "Ceja" Suit in Cal. Over Lock-Out Device
---------------------------------------------------------
Julio Ceja, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. BC647057 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
January 17, 2017), seeks an injunction against Apple, halting the
sale of all iPhones in California without a lock-out device that
will disable the iPhone while being driven by an engaged motorist,
as well as an order requiring that the company update all
currently held iPhones to install a lock-out device thereon.

Apple Inc. is a California that is engaged in the business of
manufacturing and selling computers, iPhones throughout
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan A. Michaels, Esq.
      Kathryn J. Harvey, Esq.
      Kristen R. Rodriguez, Esq.
      MLG Automotive Law, APLC
      A Professional Law Corporation
      2801 W. Coast Highway, Suite 370
      Newport Beach, CA 92663
      Telephone: (949) 581-6900
      Facsimile: (949) 581-6908
      E-mail: jmichaels@mlgautomotivelaw.com
              kharvey@mlgautomotivelaw.com
              krodriguez@mlgautomotivelaw.com


ASSAULT AND BURGERY: Faces "Marin" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GARMENDIA MARIN, EFREN GARCIA VALLE, and JORGE PERALTA-
MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and all other Plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. ASSAULT AND
BURGERY, L.L.C., an Illinois limited liability company, d/b/a
LOCKDOWN LLC, and PETER ZONIS, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00273 (N.D. Ill., January 13, 2017), was filed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance for Defendants' alleged failure to
pay Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees, their
overtime pay.

Defendant Lockdown Bar & Grill is a restaurant engaged in selling
and serving prepared food and beverages, including alcoholic
beverages, to customers for consumption on the premises.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
     Nicholas P. Cholis, Esq.
     NOLAN LAW OFFICE
     53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 322-1100
     Fax: (312) 322-1106
     E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
             ncholis@nolanwagelaw.com


ATKORE INTERNATIONAL: Wind Condominium Association Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Atkore International Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the case, Wind
Condominium Association, Inc., et al. v. Allied Tube & Conduit
Corporation, et al., has been dismissed voluntarily.

On November 16, 2015, the Company was served with a Special
Products Claim, Wind Condominium Association, Inc., et al. v.
Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation, et al. (the "Wind Condominium
Action"), a putative class action claim filed in the Southern
District of Florida which defined a "National Class" and a
"Florida Subclass" consisting of all condominium associations and
building owners who had ABF and/or ABF II installed in combination
with CPVC from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2010
nationwide and in Florida, respectively. The plaintiffs sought to
recover monetary damages for the replacement and repair of fire
suppression systems and any damaged real property or personal
property, as well as consequential and incidental damages.

The Wind Condominium Action was dismissed voluntarily by
plaintiffs on August 3, 2016. The named plaintiffs in the Wind
Condominium Action are pursuing their claims individually or in
state court.

At this time, the Company does not expect the outcome of the
Special Products Claims proceedings, or any other proceeding,
either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material
adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows, and the Company believes that its
reserves are adequate for all claims, including for Special
Products Claims contingencies. However, it is possible that
additional reserves could be required in the future that could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. This
additional loss or range of losses cannot be recorded at this
time, as it is not reasonably estimable.

Atkore International Group Inc. is a manufacturer of Electrical
Raceway products primarily for the non-residential construction
and renovation markets and Mechanical Products & Solutions
("MP&S") for the construction and industrial markets.


BARNES & NOBLE: March 14 Status Hearing in PIN Pad Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that a status hearing is
scheduled for March 14, 2017, in the PIN Pad Litigation.

The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had
been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN
numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.
Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012,
the Company was served with four putative class action complaints
(three in federal district court in the Northern District of
Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of
which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers
who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores
common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and
invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach
notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices
statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including
damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.

All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs
then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second
motion to dismiss.

On October 3, 2016, the Court granted the second motion to
dismiss, and dismissed the case without prejudice; in doing so,
the Court permitted plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint
by October 31, 2016.

On October 31, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The Court set the following schedule; motion to dismiss
brief due on November 30, 2016, opposition brief due January 6,
2017, and reply brief due January 31, 2017. A status hearing is
scheduled for March 14, 2017.


BARNES & NOBLE: Cafe Managers' Class Actions Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. continues to defend the Cafe Manager Class
Actions, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016.

Two former Cafe Managers have filed separate actions alleging
similar claims of entitlement to unpaid compensation for overtime.
In each action, the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
allegedly similarly situated employees who performed the same
position (Cafe Manager). Specifically, Christine Hartpence filed a
complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc. (Barnes & Noble) in
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on May 26, 2015 (Case
No.: 160503426), alleging that she is entitled to unpaid
compensation for overtime under Pennsylvania law and seeking to
represent a class of allegedly similarly situated employees who
performed the same position (Cafe Manager).

On July 14, 2016, Ms. Hartpence amended her complaint to assert a
purported collective action for alleged unpaid overtime
compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), by
which she sought to act as a class representative for similarly
situated Cafe Managers throughout the United States.

On July 27, 2016, Barnes & Noble removed the case to the U.S.
District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No.:
16-4034). Ms. Hartpence then voluntarily dismissed her complaint
and subsequently re-filed a similar complaint in the Philadelphia
County Court of Common Pleas (Case No.: 161003213), where it is
currently pending. The re-filed complaint alleges only claims of
unpaid overtime under Pennsylvania law and alleges class claims
under Pennsylvania law that are limited to current and former Cafe
Managers within Pennsylvania.

On September 20, 2016, Kelly Brown filed a complaint against
Barnes & Noble in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Case No.: 16-7333) in which she also alleges
that she is entitled to unpaid compensation under the FLSA and
Illinois law. Ms. Brown seeks to represent a national class of all
similarly situated Cafe Managers under the FLSA, as well as an
Illinois-based class under Illinois law.

On November 9, 2016, Ms. Brown filed an amended complaint to add
an additional plaintiff named Tiffany Stewart, who is a former
Cafe Manager who also alleges unpaid overtime compensation in
violation of New York law and seeks to represent a class of
similarly situated New York-based Cafe Managers under New York
law.


BECTON DICKINSON: Class Action Appeal Underway
----------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the appeal in a
class action lawsuit remains pending.

On July 17, 2015, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia. The plaintiffs, Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Authority,
trading as Southeast Georgia Health System, and Southeast Georgia
Health System, Inc., seek to represent a class of acute care
purchasers of BD syringes and IV catheters. The complaint alleges
that BD monopolized the markets for syringes and IV catheters
through contracts, theft of technology, false advertising,
acquisitions, and other conduct. The complaint seeks treble
damages but does not specify the amount of alleged damages.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was
granted on January 29, 2016. On September 23, 2016, the court
denied plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment to allow
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, and plaintiffs have
appealed that decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each of
the suits pending against the Company and is engaged in a vigorous
defense of each of these matters.

BD is a global medical technology company engaged in the
development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of medical
supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and diagnostic products
used by healthcare institutions, life science researchers,
clinical laboratories, the pharmaceutical industry and the general
public.


BLUE NILE: Faces "Hale" Suit Over Sale to Bain Capital Funds
------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA L. HALE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLUE NILE, INC., HARVEY
KANTER, ELAINE RUBIN, LESLIE LANE, MICHAEL POTTER, ROBERT
VAN SCHOONENBERG, CHRIS BRUZZO, MINDY MEADS, and SCOTT HOWE,
Defendants, Case No. 2017-0025- (Del. Ch., January 13, 2017),
alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to
Blue Nile's stockholders by failing to disclose material
information in the definitive proxy statement for the sale of the
Company to an Investor Group comprised of funds managed by Bain
Capital Private Equity, LP.

Blue Nile is an online retailer of high-quality diamonds and fine
jewelry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Phone: (302) 295-5310

        - and -

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 524-4290


BNP NY: Castro et al. Allege Violations of FLSA, NY Labor Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERICK FRANCISCO ALCOCER CASTRO, FABINLER HUMBERTO MERIDA (AKA
RANBERTO), GABRIEL TRINIDAD REYNA, LUDWIN GABRIEL ARREAGA
FUENTES, MARTIN ARISTAY, and MAURILIO ROQUE individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against BNP NY
FOODS, INC. (d/b/a ESSEN), AMICI 519 LLC (d/b/a ESSEN), 100 BROAD
STREET LLC (d/b/a ESSEN), TEN WESTSIDE CORP. (d/b/a ESSEN), JOHN
BYUN, and CHONG WON BYUN, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00242-VEC
(S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2017), is a case against Defendants for
alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor
Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New
York Commissioner of Labor.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control four restaurants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES PC.
     60 East 42nd Street Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Fax: (212) 317-1620


BOCCA NEW: "Bytyqi" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA, NY Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BESMIR BYTYQI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against BOCCA NEW YORK LLC, ARTUR FOGEL BILLY
KARASIK, and EVGENIA HULDISCH, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00303
(S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, misappropriated
tips and other monies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and the New York Labor Law.

Defendant Bocca is a New York limited liability company that owns,
operates, and does business as "Mela East," a restaurant that
serves Italian-based food and wine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam Braverman, Esq.
     BRAVERMAN LAW PC
     450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1308
     New York, NY 10123
     Phone: (212) 206-8166
     E-mail: adam@bravermanlawfirm.com


BSI FINANCIAL: Faces "Antoine" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BSI Financial
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Ruth Antoine, on behalf of
herself and all similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v.
BSI Financial Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-
00115-VMC-TBM (M.D. Fla., Jan. 17, 2017). The case is assigned to
Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington.

BSI Financial specializes in loan servicing and subservicing, loan
review and due diligence, and loan default services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com


BURGER BROTHERS: Benavidez et al. Sue Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blanca Benavidez, Maria Benavidez, Jose Benavidez, Jonathan
Benavidez, and Maritza Nunez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against Burger Brothers
Restaurant Group d/b/a Burger King, and John Froccaro and Jeff
Froccaro, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. cv-17-00200
(E.D.N.Y., January 3, 2017), alleges that Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff time and a half (1.5) for hours worked over forty (40),
in violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     69-12 Austin Street
     Forest Hills, NY 11375
     Phone: 718-263-9591
     Fax: 718-263-9598


C & F FOODS: Faces "Vargas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorena Vargas, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. C & F Foods, Inc. and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC647014 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
January 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

C & F Foods, Inc. originates, packs, distributes, and exports
dried beans, peas, rice, and popcorn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
      E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com


CALIFORNIA, USA: Wade Seeks Certification of NOI Members Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CHANCELLOR WADE, CHRISTOPHER
BUTLER, Plaintiffs-Class Members Class Representatives (Hereafter:
Plaintiffs-Class Members) v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATIONS, SECRETARY SCOTT KERNAN, S. HATTON, M. VOONG,
L. URQUIDEZ, T. AQUIL, JANE/JOHN DOES 1-100, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00042-LB (N.D. Cal.), move for class certification to represent:

     Nation of Islam members and supporters under the leadership
     of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, who are presently
     incarcerated and will in the future be incarcerated under
     the jurisdiction of the California Department of Corrections
     and Rehabilitations.

The matter is a civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

The Plaintiffs-Class Members also seek their appointment as class
representatives and the appointment of Carter C. White, Esq., as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Nudnt13W

The Plaintiffs' proposed class counsel is:

          Carter C. White, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY OF U.C. DAVIS CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC
          One Shields Avenue
          Davis, CA 95616-8821
          Telephone: (530) 752-5440
          Facsimile: (530) 752-5788
          E-mail: ccwhite@ucdavis.edu


CERNER CORP: "Crawford" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
CRAWFORD, R. individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CERNER CORPORATION c/o CT Corporation
System, 120 South Clayton Ave., Clayton, MO 63105, Defendant, Case
No. 4:17-cv-00015-ODS (W.D. Mo., January 12, 2017), alleges that
the Named Plaintiff and putative class members were classified as
salaried exempt associates and were not paid overtime wages for
hours worked over 40 per week. As such, these employees were
allegedly denied and continue to be denied overtime wages under an
illegal pay policy that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cerner Corporation supplies health care information technology
solutions, services, devices, and hardware to hospitals and
clinics throughout the United States and abroad.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
     WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
     1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Phone: 816-876-2600
     Fax: 816-221-8763
     Email: dirks@williamsdirks.com

        - and -

     Jason Knutson, Esq.
     HABUSH HABUSH & ROTTIER, S.C.
     Breanne L. Snapp, Esq.
     150 East Gilman St., Suite 2000
     Madison, WI 53703
     Phone: 608/255-6663
     Fax: 608/255-0745
     Email: jknutson@habush.com
     Email: bsnapp@habush.com


CLARFIELD OKON: Seeks Final Approval of "Rojas" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties jointly move the Court for an order certifying the
case captioned HENRY A. ROJAS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. LAW OFFICES OF CLARFIELD, OKON, SALOMONE &
PINCUS, P.L. and OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
03268-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), as a class action, and granting final
approval of the settlement, on behalf of this class:

     (i) all persons with a New York address (ii) to whom Law
     Offices of Clarfield, Okon, Salomone & Pincus, P.L. sent a
     letter referencing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
     ("FDCPA") in substantially the same form as "Exhibit A" to
     the Complaint in this action; (iii) during a period
     beginning on June 4, 2014, and ending on January 31, 2016.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class, filed the
lawsuit, which alleges that COSP violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, by inter alia, sending consumers initial written
collection communications, which made false, deceptive, and
misleading representations by failing to provide the entire amount
of the debt that was allegedly owed.

On September 30, 2016, the Court entered an Order granting
Preliminary Approval to the Parties' Settlement Agreement.

By this Motion, the Parties jointly seek certification of a class
action and final approval of their Agreement, including an award
of Class Counsel's fees and costs in an amount of $23,000 pursuant
to the Agreement, and in addition, Class Counsel's pending Motion
for Attorney Fees and Costs.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Sgke3y1K

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Gentile, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA, PC
          110 Jericho Turnpike - Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Telephone: (212) 675-6161
          Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com

Defendant Law Offices of Clarfield, Okon, Salomone & Pincus, P.L.,
is represented by:

          Joseph John Ortego, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY
          50 Jericho Quadrangle, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (516) 832-7500
          Facsimile: (866) 947-2079
          E-mail: jortego@nixonpeabody.com

Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, is represented by:

          Patrick Broderick, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 801-9200
          Facsimile: (212) 801-6400
          E-mail: broderickp@gtlaw.com


COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Loera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Loera, Matthew Kolmos and Kimberly Kolmos, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees v. Collection
Technology, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
BC647015 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 17, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

Collection Technology, Inc. operates a debt collection agency
located at 10801 6th St #200, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
      E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com


CONTINENTAL PARKING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Break
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Nolasco Rivas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Continental Parking Service, Inc., Fred
Kohan, Does 1-10, and Does 11-20, business entities inclusive,
Case No. BC647180 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 17, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide Parking Attendants
with rest and meal periods in violation of the California Labor
Code.

The Defendants operate numerous paid parking lot or structure
facilities throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amir Mostafavi, Esq.
      Afshin Siman, Esq.
      Raymond Hay, Esq.
      MOSTAFAVI LAW GROUP, APC
      11835 W Olympic Blvd., STE 1055
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310) 473-1111
      Facsimile: (310) 473-2222
      E-mail: amir@mostafavilaw.com


DAY & NITE: Faces "Dobler" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnathan Dobler, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated employees v. Day & Nite All Service FLA, LLC d/b/a Day &
Nite, Case No. 8:17-cv-00128-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., January 18,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Day & Nite All Service FLA, LLC provides refrigeration, kitchen
equipment, hvac & plumbing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      201 N. Franklin Street, #600
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
      E-mail: Medelman@forthepeople.com


DELTA APPAREL: California Wage and Hour Lawsuits Settled
--------------------------------------------------------
Delta Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended October 1, 2016, that two California wage and
hour lawsuits have been settled.

The Company said, "We were served with a complaint in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on or
about March 13, 2013, by a former employee of our Delta Activewear
business unit at our Santa Fe Springs, California distribution
facility alleging violations of California wage and hour laws and
unfair business practices with respect to meal and rest periods,
compensation and wage statements, and related claims (the
"Complaint"). The Complaint was brought as a class action and
sought to include all of our Delta Activewear business unit's
current and certain former employees within California who are or
were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint
also named as defendants Junkfood, Soffe, an independent
contractor of Soffe, and a former employee, and sought to include
all current and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe and
the Soffe independent contractor within California who are or were
non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint
sought injunctive and declaratory relief, monetary damages and
compensation, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-
judgment interest."

"On or about August 22, 2014, we were served with an additional
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, by a former employee of Junkfood and two former
employees of Soffe at our Santa Fe Springs, California
distribution facility alleging violations of California wage and
hour laws and unfair business practices the same or substantially
similar to those alleged in the Complaint and seeking the same or
substantially similar relief as sought in the Complaint. This
complaint was brought as a class action and sought to include all
current and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe, our Delta
Activewear business unit, the Soffe independent contractor named
in the Complaint and an individual employee of such contractor
within California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage
and hour laws.

"On September 17, 2015, an agreement in principle was reached
between all parties to settle the above-referenced wage and hour
matters, with the defendants in the matters agreeing to pay an
aggregate amount of $300,000 in exchange for a comprehensive
release of all claims at issue in the matters. Delta Apparel,
Inc., Soffe and Junkfood collectively agreed to contribute
$200,000 towards the aggregate settlement amount, and we have this
amount included in our accrued expenses as of October 1, 2016, and
October 3, 2015. The settlement agreement was approved by the
applicable court and these matters have been finally resolved,
with the agreed amounts funded subsequent to the 2016 fiscal year-
end."

Delta Apparel, Inc. is an international apparel design, marketing,
manufacturing and sourcing company that features a diverse
portfolio of lifestyle basics and branded activewear apparel,
headwear and related accessory products.


DES MOINES REGISTER: Court Denies Epstein's Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John A. Jarvey denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class filed in the lawsuit entitled VICTOR EPSTEIN v. DES MOINES
REGISTER AND TRIBUNE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, and GANNETT
CO., INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-00453-JAJ-CFB
(S.D. Iowa).

Judge Jarvey opined that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act to certify the
proposed collective action because there is no company policy
requiring employees to work uncompensated overtime and, therefore,
members of the potential class are not similarly situated.  Judge
Jarvey added that treatment of all of the Plaintiff's putative
class members' claims in a class action lawsuit would be
unmanageable.

Victor Epstein filed the motion for conditional certification and
Court-authorized notice asking the Court for conditional
certification of a collective action on behalf of himself and a
group of similarly situated individuals pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) and Local Rule 23.

The case arises from the Plaintiff's original Petition at Law and
Jury Demand, filed November 4, 2015, in the Iowa District Court
for Polk County.  The Plaintiff's four count amended complaint
alleged that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law by not compensating
employees for all overtime hours worked, among other violations.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ef84vGpA


DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C3 said in its Form
10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 22, 2016, for the monthly distribution period from
October 14, 2016 to November 14, 2016, that discovery is ongoing
in a lawsuit by investors against Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
("DBNTC").

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by
Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a
derivative action against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") in
New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the
benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for
alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA),
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based
on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform their duties as
trustees for the trusts.

Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and
filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of and for
the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially
overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action.
The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total
realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion, but the
complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum
certain.

DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19,
2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural
grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and
Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction.
The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the
motion to dismiss.

On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
federal court.  In the amended complaint, plaintiffs assert claims
in connection with 62 trusts governed by Indenture Agreements.
The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have
suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8 billion,
but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a
sum certain.

DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 15, 2016.  On August 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion to dismiss. On September 2, 2016, DBNTC
and DBTCA filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss.
Discovery is ongoing.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Underway Blackrock Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C3 said in its Form
10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 22, 2016, for the monthly distribution period from
October 14, 2016 to November 14, 2016, that discovery is ongoing
in a lawsuit by investors against Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas ("DBTCA").

On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court
action against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange
County with respect to 513 trusts.  On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and
included DBNTC as an additional defendant.  The amended complaint
asserts three causes of action:  breach of contract; breach of
fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of
interest.  Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of
themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the
465 trusts.  The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at
issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of
U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for money
damages in a sum certain.

On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to
plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of
the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion
to strike as to plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action.

On September 12, 2016, plaintiffs filed oppositions to the
demurrer and motion to strike of DBNTC and DBTCA.  On October 3,
2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed replies in further support of their
demurrer and motion to strike.

On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA's demurrer,
providing plaintiffs with thirty days' leave to amend, and denied
DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to strike.  Discovery is ongoing.


DST SYSTEMS: "Ducharme" Suit Claims Breach of Duties Under ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES DUCHARME, individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the DST SYSTEMS, INC.
401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., THE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE DST SYSTEMS, INC., 401(K) PROFIT SHARING
PLAN, THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DST
SYSTEMS, INC., and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00022-HFS (W.D. Mo., January 13, 2017), accuses Defendants of
breaching the responsibilities, obligations, and/or duties imposed
upon plan fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

DST Systems, Inc. provides global information processing services
and support to clients in the asset management, insurance,
retirement, brokerage and healthcare industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Schermerhorn, Esq.
     John M. Klamann, Esq.
     Andrew Schermerhorn, Esq.
     Paul D. Anderson, Esq.
     THE KLAMANN LAW FIRM
     4435 Main Street, Suite 150
     Kansas City, MO 64111
     Phone: (816) 421-2626
     Fax: (816) 421-8686
     E-mail: jklamann@klamannlaw.com
             ajs@klamannlaw.com
             panderson@klamannlaw.com

        - and -

     Ted Kapke, Esq.
     Mike Fleming, Esq.
     KAPKE & WILLERTH
     3304 N.E. Ralph Powell Road
     Lee's Summit, MO 64064
     Phone: (816) 461-3800
     Fax: (816) 254-8014
     E-mail: ted@kapkewillerth.com
             mike@kapkewillerth.com

        - and -

     William Carr, Esq.
     Bryan T. White, Esq.
     WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY & CARR
     19049 East Valley View Parkway
     Independence, MO 64055
     Phone: (816) 373-9080
     Fax: (816) 373-9319
     E-mail: bwhite@wagblaw.com

        - and -

     Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
     HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN
     221 West Lexington, Suite 400,
     P.O. Box 900
     Independence, MO 64051
     Phone: (816) 836-5050
     Fax: (816) 836-8966
     E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com


EMPIRE PARKING: Sued in Ga. Over Vehicle Immobilization Device
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spence Beck, and all others similarly situated v. Empire Parking
Services Inc., Case No. 2017CV284982 (Ga. Super. Ct., January 18,
2017), seeks to end the Defendant's practice of impounding the
Plaintiff's vehicle by installing a vehicle immobilization device.

Empire Parking Services Inc. owns and operates a parking services
company located at 3400 Peachtree Rd NE #800, Atlanta, GA 30326.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Fletcher II, Esq.
      FLETCHER LAW FIRM LLC
      PO Box 88925
      Atlanta GA 30356
      Telephone: (404) 409-5665
      Facsimile: (888) 371-1248
      E-mail: jim@JimFletcher.net


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: "Ludwick" Class Action Appeal Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that an appeal in the
case by Dale R. Ludwick remains pending in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri
(the "District Court"), captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc.,
Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance
Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd. The complaint alleges
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"), requests injunctive and declaratory relief seeks
unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an
amount not presently determinable, treble damages, and other
relief, and claims Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid at least $0 for her
annuity.

On April 13, 2015, the Company joined in the filing of a Joint
Motion to Dismiss the complaint. On February 12, 2016, the
District Court granted the defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss.
Judgment was entered on February 12, 2016.

On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff Ludwick filed a Notice of Appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the
"Court of Appeals") from the District Court's Order and Judgment.

As of September 30, 2016, the Company did not have sufficient
information to determine whether the Company is exposed to any
losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable
beyond an expense contingency estimate of $2 million, which was
accrued during the year ended September 30, 2016.

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


FIFTH STREET: Feb. 16 Fairness Hearing on FSC Class Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
court has entered the proposed order and scheduled the fairness
hearing for February 16, 2017 in the class-action lawsuits against
Fifth Street Finance Corp or FSC.

The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative
securities class-action lawsuits arising from its role as
investment adviser to FSC. The first lawsuit was filed on October
1, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and is captioned Howard Randall, Trustee,
Howard & Gale Randall Trust FBO Kimberly Randall Irrevocable Trust
UA Feb 15, 2000 v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-07759-LAK. The second lawsuit was filed on October 14,
2015, in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut and is captioned Lynn Waters-Cottrell v. Fifth Street
Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01488. The case was later
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, where it is pending as Case No. 16-cv-00088-
LAK. The third lawsuit was filed on November 12, 2015, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and is captioned Robert J. Hurwitz v. Fifth Street Finance Corp.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08908-LAK.

The Company said, "The defendants in all three cases are Leonard
M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Todd G.
Owens, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Richard Petrocelli, us and FSC."

"The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of
a putative class of investors who purchased FSC common stock
between July 7, 2014 and February 6, 2015, inclusive. The lawsuits
allege in general terms that defendants engaged in a purportedly
fraudulent scheme designed to artificially inflate the true value
of FSC's investment portfolio and investment income in order to
increase FSAM's revenue, which FSAM received as the asset manager
and investment adviser (through subsidiaries) of FSC.

"For example, the lawsuits allege that FSC improperly delayed the
write-down of at least three of its investments until the fiscal
quarter ended December 31, 2014, after FSAM had conducted its
initial public offering, or IPO, in October 2014, even though FSC
purportedly should have taken the write-downs before FSAM's IPO.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of
damages being sought in any of the actions.

"On February 1, 2016, the court appointed Oklahoma Police Pension
and Retirement System as lead plaintiff and the law firm of
Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed its
consolidated complaint on April 1, 2016. The consolidated
complaint alleges claims similar to those pled in the original
complaints on behalf of the same putative class. Defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated complaint on May 31, 2016.

"After defendants filed their motion to dismiss, the parties
engaged in a mediation to explore the possible settlement of the
action. Following the mediation, the parties entered into an
agreement to settle the case for $14,050,000 on behalf of a
settlement class consisting of persons and entities who purchased
our common stock during the period from July 7, 2014 through
February 6, 2015. Approximately 99% of which will be covered by
FSC's insurance proceeds from its carriers. The proposed
settlement is subject to lead plaintiff's completion of additional
discovery and approval by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York after notice has been sent to the
settlement class. Lead plaintiff completed the additional
discovery and decided to proceed with the proposed settlement.

"The parties submitted the proposed settlement to the court on
September 23, 2016, and asked the court to enter an order
certifying the putative class for settlement purposes, authorizing
dissemination of notice of the settlement to potential class
members, and scheduling a fairness hearing on the proposed
settlement. On November 9, 2016, the court entered the proposed
order and scheduled the fairness hearing for February 16, 2017."


FIFTH STREET: FSC Proxy Litigation Now Concluded
------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
proxy litigation involving Fifth Street Finance Corp or FSC is now
concluded.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class-action
lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder of Fifth Street Finance
Corp on January 29, 2016, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The case is captioned James Craig v. Bernard D. Berman,
et al., C.A. No. 11947-VCG. The defendants in the case were
Bernard D. Berman, James Castro-Blanco, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Brian
S. Dunn, Richard P. Dutkiewicz, Byron J. Haney, Sandeep K.
Khorana, Todd G. Owens, Douglas F. Ray, Fifth Street Management
LLC, FSC, Fifth Street Holdings L.P., and the Company. The
complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to FSC stockholders by, among other things, issuing an
incomplete or inaccurate preliminary proxy statement that
purportedly attempted to mislead FSC stockholders into voting
against proposals to be presented by another shareholder
(RiverNorth Capital Management) in a proxy contest in connection
with FSC's 2016 annual meeting. The competing shareholder
proposals had sought to elect three director nominees to FSC's
Board of Directors and to terminate the Investment Advisory
Agreement between FSC and the Company. The complaint also charged
that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
perpetuating and failing to terminate the Investment Advisory
Agreement and by seeking to entrench themselves as directors and
FSAM affiliates as FSC's manager. The FSAM entities were charged
with breaching their duties as alleged controlling persons of FSC
and with aiding and abetting the FSC directors' breaches of duty.
The complaint sought, among other things, an injunction preventing
FSC and its Board of Directors from soliciting proxies for the
2016 annual meeting until additional disclosures were issued; a
declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
refusing to terminate the Investment Advisory Agreement and by
keeping the FSC Board of Directors and Fifth Street Management LLC
in place; a declaration that any shares repurchased by FSC after
the record date of the 2016 annual meeting would not be considered
outstanding shares for purposes of the FSC stockholder approvals
sought at the annual meeting; and awarding plaintiff costs and
disbursements. The plaintiff moved for expedited proceedings and
for a preliminary injunction.

Defendants opposed plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings
and moved to dismiss the case. FSC also filed another amendment to
the preliminary proxy statement, making additional disclosures
relating to issues raised by plaintiff and RiverNorth. On February
16, 2016, plaintiff informed the Delaware court that the basis for
his injunction motion had become moot and that he was withdrawing
his motions for a preliminary injunction and expedited
proceedings.

On February 18, 2016, FSC announced that it had entered into an
agreement with RiverNorth pursuant to which RiverNorth would
withdraw its competing proxy solicitation. Plaintiff later
informed the court that his case had become moot, and he moved for
a "mootness fee." On September 23, 2016, the court awarded
plaintiff fees and expenses of $350,000. Any potential liabilities
related to this matter would be borne by FSC, not the Company. The
litigation is now concluded.


FIFTH STREET: Feb. 16 Fairness Hearing on FSAM Class Action Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
court entered the proposed order and scheduled the fairness
hearing for February 16, 2017, with respect to the settlement in
the class-action lawsuits involving Fifth Street Asset Management
Inc.

The Company was named as a defendant in two putative securities
class-action lawsuits filed by purchasers of the Company's shares.
The suits are related to the securities class actions brought by
shareholders of FSC, for which Fifth Street Management serves as
investment adviser.

The first lawsuit by the Company's shareholders was filed on
January 7, 2016, in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut and was captioned Ronald K. Linde, etc. v.
Fifth Street Asset Management Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
00025. The defendants are the Company, Leonard M. Tannenbaum,
Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Steven M. Noreika, Wayne
Cooper, Mark J. Gordon, Thomas L. Harrison, and Frank C. Meyer.
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") on behalf of a
putative class of persons and entities who purchased the Company's
common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement
issued in connection with the Company's IPO. The complaint alleges
that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of
conduct to artificially inflate FSC's assets and investment income
and, in turn, the Company's valuation at the time of its IPO,
thereby rendering the Company's IPO Registration Statement and
Prospectus materially false and misleading. The plaintiffs have
not quantified their claims for relief.

On February 25, 2016, the court granted the Company's unopposed
motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, where the case could be
coordinated as appropriate with the securities class actions filed
by FSC shareholders. The case is now pending in the Southern
District of New York as Case No. 1:16-cv-01941-LAK.

On April 22, 2016, the court appointed Kieran and Susan Duffy as
lead plaintiffs and the law firm of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as
lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June
13, 2016.

On March 7, 2016, the other putative class action by the Company's
shareholders was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The case was captioned Joyce L.
Trupp Agreement of Trust v. Fifth Street Asset Management Inc., et
al., No. 1:16-cv-01711. The defendants were the same as in the
Linde case, and the complaint was a virtual clone of the original
Linde complaint. The Trupp plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her
case before lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed in the
Linde case.

Following an agreed mediation, and as previously disclosed in the
Company's Form 8-K filed on August 4, 2016, the parties in the
Linde case signed an agreement to settle the action for
$9,250,000, which will be covered by insurance proceeds. The
proposed settlement is subject to lead plaintiffs' completion of
additional discovery and approval by the court after notice has
been sent to the settlement class. Lead plaintiffs completed the
additional discovery and decided to proceed with the proposed
settlement.

The parties submitted the proposed settlement to the court on
September 23, 2016, and asked the court to enter an order
certifying the putative class for settlement purposes, authorizing
dissemination of notice of the settlement to potential class
members, and scheduling a fairness hearing on the proposed
settlement.

On November 9, 2016, the court entered the proposed order and
scheduled the fairness hearing for February 16, 2017.

A provision for losses of $9,250,000 related to the lawsuits has
been recorded, offset by the accrual of expected insurance
recoveries of $9,250,000 in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements as of September 30, 2016. An adverse judgment
for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect on the
operations and liquidity of the Company.


FLAT RATE: Faces "Djurdjevich" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIRKO DJURDJEVICH, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. FLAT RATE MOVERS, LTD., SAM GHOLAM,
ISRAEL CARMEL and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00261-AJN (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2017), claims that Plaintiffs are
entitled to (i) compensation for wages paid at less than the
statutory minimum wage, (ii) unpaid wages from Defendants for
overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay
as required by law, and (iii) liquidated damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, because Defendants' violations lacked a
good faith basis.

Flat Rate Movers, Ltd., a moving company that serves clients
across the United States, moves its clients' property across state
borders on a regular basis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew C. Heerde, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW C. HEERDE
     222 Broadway, 19th Fl.
     New York, NY 10038
     Phone: 347-460-3588
     Fax: 347-535-3588
     Email: mheerde@heerdelaw.com


FOODLINER: Faces "Austin" Suit Over Failure to Provide Break
------------------------------------------------------------
Ronda Austin, Christopher Corduck, Ernest Dial, Billy Wayne Gibson
and Bobby G. Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Foodliner, Inc., and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. RG17846044 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 18,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide
Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees with proper meal and rest
periods, and failure to pay one additional hour of pay at
respective regular rates of compensation for each workday that
they were not provided an adequate off-duty meal or rest period.

Foodliner, Inc. is in the business of transporting various liquid
and dry cargo from one location to another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hunter Pyle, Esq.
      Chad Saunders, Esq.
      SUNDEEN SALINAS & PYLE
      428 Thirteenth Street, Eighth Floor
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 663-9240
      Facsimile: (510)663-9241
      E-mail: hpyle@ssrplaw.com
              csaunders@ssrplaw.com


GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES: Faces Liberty Salad Suit in E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GROUNDHOG
ENTERPRISES, INC. The case is styled as LIBERTY SALAD, INC. and
18TH STREET SALAD, INC., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES,
INC., doing business as MERCHANT LYNX SERVICES, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00226-TJS (E.D. Pa., Jan. 17, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Timothy J. Savage.

Groundhog Enterprises is a merchant service provider.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


HENIFF TRANSPORTATION: "Hernandez" Invokes FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff v. HENIFF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00298 (N.D. Ill., January 13, 2017),
accuses Defendants of i) failing to pay Plaintiff at the least the
federally and/or state-mandated minimum wages for all time worked
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law; ii) failing to compensate Plaintiff for all time
worked at the rate agreed to by the Parties in violation of the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA); and 3) failing
to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for all
accrued vacation pay upon separation of their employment in
violation of the IWPCA, and for claims arising under the IWPCA for
unpaid vacation.

Defendant is in the business of transporting bulk liquid
chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HINT INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Product Advertisements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Kim Madrigal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Hint, Inc. and Does 1 through 20 inclusive, Case No.
BC646991 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 17, 2017), arises out of the
Defendant's false or misleading labels and advertisements relating
to their Flavored Water Products.

Hint, Inc. owns and operates a beverage company headquartered in
San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph S. Farzam, Esq.
      JOSEPH FARZAM LAW FIRM
      A Professional Law Corporation
      11766 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 280
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (610) 226-6890
      Facsimile: (310) 226-6891
      E-mail: joseph@farzamlaw.com


HRG GROUP: Paid $5.5MM in Legal Fees Related to "Cressy" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
HRG Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that FGL has incurred and
paid $5.5 million related to legal fees and other costs and $3.3
million related to settlement costs as of September 30, 2016, with
respect to the Cressy litigation.

On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Eddie L. Cressy filed a putative class
complaint captioned Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life
Insurance Company, et. al. ("Cressy") in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles (the "LA Court"), Case No. BC-
514340. The complaint was filed after the Plaintiff was unable to
maintain an action in federal court. The complaint asserts, inter
alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied
on defendants' advice in purchasing allegedly unsuitable equity-
indexed insurance policies.

On January 2, 2015, the Court entered the Final Judgment in
Cressy, certifying the class for settlement purposes, and
approving the class settlement. On August 10, 2015, FGL tendered
$1.3 million to the Settlement Administrator for a claim review
fund. FGL implemented an interest enhancement feature for certain
policies as part of the class settlement, which enhancement began
on October 12, 2015.

On October 21, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to amend the
January 2, 2015 final order and judgement, to extend the deadline
for settlement completion from October 24, 2016 to December 1,
2016.

At September 30, 2016, FGL estimated the total cost for the
settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class
action would be $9.2 million with a liability for the unpaid
portion of the estimate of $0.4 million.  FGL has incurred and
paid $5.5 million related to legal fees and other costs and $3.3
million related to settlement costs as of September 30, 2016.

Based on the information currently available, FGL does not expect
the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs
to differ materially from the amount accrued. FGL had been seeking
indemnification from OMGUK under the First Amended and Restated
Stock Purchase Agreement, dated February 17, 2011 between FGL
(formerly, Harbinger F&G, LLC) and OMGUK related to the settlement
and the costs and fees in defending the Cressy litigation in both
the federal and state courts.  During Fiscal 2015, FGL, the
Company and OMGUK reached a global settlement which resolved all
prior outstanding claims, resulting in FGL receiving $3.6 million
in settlement of its outstanding recoverable related to the Cressy
litigation.

HRG is a holding company that conducts its operations through its
operating subsidiaries. As of September 30, 2016, its principal
operating subsidiaries include: (i) Spectrum Brands, its
subsidiary that provides global branded consumer products; (ii)
FGL, its subsidiary that provides life insurance and annuity
products; and (iii) Front Street, its subsidiary engaged in the
business of providing long-term reinsurance, including reinsurance
to the specialty insurance sector of fixed, deferred and payout
annuities.


HRG GROUP: Appeal in "Ludwick" Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------
HRG Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the appeal related to
the class action lawsuit by Dale R. Ludwick remains pending.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint ("Ludwick
Litigation") was filed in the United States District Court,
Western District of Missouri, captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated ("Plaintiff Ludwick")
v. Harbinger Group Inc. (HRG's former corporate name), FGL
Insurance, Raven Reinsurance Company ("Raven Re"), and Front
Street Cayman (the "Ludwick Defendants"). The complaint alleged
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"), requested injunctive and declaratory relief, sought
unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an
amount not specified, treble damages, and other relief, and claims
Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid for her annuity.

On April 13, 2015, the Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
the complaint. On February 12, 2016, the District Court granted
the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss. On March 3, 2016,
Plaintiff Ludwick filed a notice of appeal.

As of September 30, 2016, HRG and FGL did not have sufficient
information to determine whether FGL is exposed to any losses that
would be either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense
contingency estimate of $1.6 million, which was accrued during
Fiscal 2016.

HRG is a holding company that conducts its operations through its
operating subsidiaries. As of September 30, 2016, its principal
operating subsidiaries include: (i) Spectrum Brands, its
subsidiary that provides global branded consumer products; (ii)
FGL, its subsidiary that provides life insurance and annuity
products; and (iii) Front Street, its subsidiary engaged in the
business of providing long-term reinsurance, including reinsurance
to the specialty insurance sector of fixed, deferred and payout
annuities.


HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: 2 Shareholder Suits Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that two
shareholder lawsuits against the Company have been dismissed.

Beginning on March 13, 2014, two lawsuits styled as class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas against us and several then-current officers of the Company
alleging that the Company made false and misleading statements
that artificially inflated our stock prices.  The lawsuits allege,
among other things, that we misrepresented our compliance with the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and anti-money laundering statutes
and that we lacked adequate internal controls.  The lawsuits seek
damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not
specified.

On May 12, 2014, a shareholder filed a motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff, which remains pending.  Both of the March 2014
lawsuits were dismissed voluntarily.  One was dismissed during the
quarter ended September 30, 2016 and the second on October 6,
2016.


IFCO SYSTEMS: "Graham" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Arthur Graham, Arvis Graham, and
Marshall Fairley, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. IFCO
Systems N.A., Inc., an unknown business entity; CIOX Health, an
uknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1620273, was removed from the San
Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-00074 to the
proceeding.

IFCO Systems designs, develops, and manufactures reusable plastic
containers for fresh products, including fruits and vegetables.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Engineers Fund Sues Over Lidocaine Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 30 BENEFITS FUND,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., SANDOZ, INC., FOUGERA
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., HI-TECH PHARMACAL CO., INC., and AKORN,
INC., ACTAVIS HOLDCO U.S., INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00205-CMR (E.D. Pa., January 13, 2017), accuses Defendants of
engaging in a conspiracy to fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the
prices of Lidocaine/Prilocaine topical cream.

IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC. -- http://www.impaxlabs.com/-- is a
technology-based specialty pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Katie R. Beran, Esq.
     Brent W. Landau, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     325 Chestnut St., Suite 900
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Phone: (215) 985-3270
     Fax: (215) 985-3271
     E-mail: kberan@hausfeld.com
             blandau@hausfeld.com

        - and -

     Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
     Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
     Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
     Stephanie Y. Cho, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 633-1908
     Fax: (415) 358-4980
     E-mail: mlehmann@@hausfeld.com
             bsweeney@hausfeld.com
             clebsock@hausfeld.com
             scho@hausfeld.com

        - and -

     Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
     Jeannine M. Kednney, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 540-7200
     Fax: (202) 540-7201
     E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
             jkenney@hausfeld.com

        - and -

     Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
     Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
     HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
     185 Madison Ave.
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 213-8311
     E-mail: FSchirripa@hrsclaw.com
             DRehns@hrsclaw.com


INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Defending Against "Trahan" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21,
2016, that the Company is facing a putative stockholder class
action lawsuit captioned Trahan v. Interactive Intelligence Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-03161-SEB-TAB (the "Trahan
Action").

On August 30, 2016, Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc. (the
"Company") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of August 30, 2016 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the
Company, Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc., a
California corporation ("Genesys"), Giant Merger Sub Inc., an
Indiana corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of
Genesys ("Merger Sub"), and, solely for the purposes of Section
5.16 of the Merger Agreement, Greeneden Lux 3 S.aR.L., a societe a
responsabilite limitee under the laws of Luxembourg ("Lux 3"),
Greeneden U.S. Holdings I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company ("Holdings I"), and Greeneden U.S. Holdings II, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Holdings II"), pursuant to
which, among other things, Merger Sub will merge with and into the
Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary
of Genesys (the "Merger").

On November 18, 2016, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, captioned Trahan v. Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-03161-SEB-TAB (the "Trahan Action"). The
Trahan Action names as defendants the Company, individual members
of the Company's board of directors, Genesys, Merger Sub, Lux 3,
Holdings I and Holdings II. The Trahan Action alleges, among other
things, that the Company's board of directors breached its
fiduciary duties by agreeing to an allegedly inadequate price in
the Merger, by conducting an allegedly flawed sales process, and
by agreeing to certain deal-protection provisions in the Merger
Agreement that allegedly preclude or impede a potential superior
proposal.  The Trahan Action further alleges that Merger Sub and
the other corporate defendants aided and abetted these alleged
fiduciary breaches. In addition, the Trahan Action alleges that
the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed by the
Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 4,
2016 relating to the Company's special meeting of shareholders
held on November 9, 2016 omitted certain material information in
violation of Section 20(a) and Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder. Among other things, the plaintiff seeks orders
certifying the lawsuit as a class action, enjoining defendants
from closing the Merger until the Company discloses certain
information, and awarding unspecified damages to the plaintiff and
the purported class of the Company's shareholders. Although the
Company and the individual members of its board of directors
believe that the claims and allegations raised in the Trahan
Action are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the
Trahan Action, its ultimate outcome cannot presently be
determined.


JCB CLEANING: Faces "Jaramillo" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE JARAMILLO, LUZ DARY GIRALDO, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. JCB CLEANING SYSTEMS INC., JULIO
CACERES and BLANCA CACERES, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60081-KMW
(S.D. Fla., January 13, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for
alleged unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jcb Cleaning Systems Inc. is in the industrial cleaning services
business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503.5131
     Fax: (888) 270.5549
     E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


JOHNSON CONTROLS: "Wandel" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the defendants in the
case, Wandel v. Tyco International plc, has voluntarily dismissed
the complaint as to all defendants.

On March 1, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Wandel v. Tyco
International plc, et al., Docket No. C-000010-16, was filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey naming Johnson Controls
International plc ("JCI plc"; previously Tyco International plc),
the individual members of its board of directors, Johnson
Controls, Inc. and a merger subsidiary of JCI plc as defendants.
The complaint alleged that, prior to the merger, the JCI plc's
directors breached their fiduciary duties and exercised their
powers as directors in a manner oppressive to the public
shareholders of Tyco in violation of Irish law by, among other
things, failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value and
failing to protect against purported conflicts of interest. The
complaint further alleged that JCI plc, Johnson Controls, Inc. and
JCI plc's merger subsidiary aided and abetted Tyco's directors in
the breach of their fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among
other things, to enjoin the merger between Johnson Controls, Inc.
and Tyco's subsidiary. On September 9, 2016, plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the complaint as to all defendants.

Johnson Controls is a global diversified technology and industrial
leader serving customers in more than 150 countries. The Company
creates quality products, services and solutions to optimize
energy and operational efficiencies of buildings; lead-acid
automotive batteries and advanced batteries for hybrid and
electric vehicles; and seating and interior systems for
automobiles.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Settlement Reached in "Laufer" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the
case, Laufer v. Johnson Controls, Inc., have reached a settlement
agreement.

On May 20, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Laufer v.
Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., Docket No. 2016CV003859, was filed
in the Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, naming
Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of
directors, JCI plc and JCI plc's merger subsidiary as defendants.
The complaint alleged that Johnson Controls Inc.'s directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger
between Johnson Controls Inc. and JCI plc's merger subsidiary by,
among other things, failing to take steps to maximize shareholder
value, seeking to benefit themselves improperly and failing to
disclose material information in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the merger. The complaint further
alleged that JCI plc aided and abetted Johnson Controls Inc.'s
directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties. The complaint
sought, among other things, to enjoin the merger.

On August 8, 2016, the plaintiffs agreed to settle the action and
release all claims that were or could have been brought by
plaintiffs or any member of the putative class of Johnson Controls
Inc.'s shareholders. The settlement is conditioned upon, among
other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of
settlement.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing
will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness of
the proposed settlement. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the court will approve the settlement. In either event, or
certain other circumstances, the settlement could be terminated.

Johnson Controls is a global diversified technology and industrial
leader serving customers in more than 150 countries. The Company
creates quality products, services and solutions to optimize
energy and operational efficiencies of buildings; lead-acid
automotive batteries and advanced batteries for hybrid and
electric vehicles; and seating and interior systems for
automobiles.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Injunction Request in "Gumm" Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Gumm et al v. Molinaroli et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-
01093 (E.D. Wisc.), a hearing was held Jan. 4, 2017, before Judge
Pamela Pepper on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by
Danny High, Michael F Holzhauer, Cynthia Pontier, Paul J Pontier,
Arlene D Gumm.

Johnson Controls, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that a hearing on the
preliminary injunction motion is scheduled for January 2017 in the
case, Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al.

On August 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gumm v.
Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
naming Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board
of directors at the time of the merger with JCI plc's merger
subsidiary and certain of its officers, JCI plc and JCI plc's
merger subsidiary as defendants. The complaint asserted various
causes of action under the federal securities laws, state law and
the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, including that the individual
defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties and unjustly
enriched themselves by structuring the merger among the JCI plc,
Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a manner that would result in a
United States federal income tax realization event for the
putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders and
allegedly result in certain benefits to the defendants, as well as
related claims regarding alleged misstatements in the proxy
statement/prospectus distributed to the Johnson Controls, Inc.
shareholders, conversion and breach of contract. The complaint
also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., JCI plc and JCI plc's
merger subsidiary aided and abetted the individual defendants in
their breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The
complaint seeks, among other things, disgorgement of profits,
damages and to enjoin the closing of the merger.

On September 30, 2016, approximately one month after the closing
of the merger, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion
seeking, among other items, to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to
make certain intercompany payments that plaintiffs contend will
impact the United States federal income tax consequences of the
merger to the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc.
shareholders and to enjoin Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting
to the Internal Revenue Service the capital gains taxes payable by
this putative class as a result of the closing of the merger. A
hearing on the preliminary injunction motion is currently
scheduled for January 2017.

Johnson Controls is a global diversified technology and industrial
leader serving customers in more than 150 countries. The Company
creates quality products, services and solutions to optimize
energy and operational efficiencies of buildings; lead-acid
automotive batteries and advanced batteries for hybrid and
electric vehicles; and seating and interior systems for
automobiles.


KARDESH PETROLEUM: Faces "Figengul" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kardesh Petroleum
Inc. The case is entitled as Hakan Figengul, On behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kardesh Petroleum
Inc., and Dincer Ocak, In his individual capacities, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00242-DRH-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 17,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Denis R. Hurley.

Kardesh Petroleum Inc. is in the gasoline business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Delvis Melendez, Esq.
          90 Bradley Street
          Brentwood, NY 11717
          Telephone: (631) 434 1443
          Facsimile: (631) 434 1443
          E-mail: delvisprlaw@aol.com


KEMPER SPORTS: Faces "Lall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Lall, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kemper Sports Management, Inc., and The Village Club
of Sands Point, Case No. 700853/2017 (N.Y. Super. Ct., January 18,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate more than a dozen membership clubs
across the country in different states which provide restaurant,
lodging and recreational facilities to members and the public all
year round.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 355-9668
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


KEMPHARM INC: Seeks Removal of "Christians" Suit to Iowa Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case captioned KEVIN CHRISTIANS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. KEMPHARM, INC., TRAVIS C. MICKLE, PH.D., GORDON K.
JOHNSON, R. LADUANE CLIFTON, SVEN GUENTHER, PH.D., CHRISTAL M.M.
MICKLE, DANNY L. THOMPSON, MATTHEW R. PLOOSTER, RICHARD W. PASCOE,
JOSEPH B. SALURI, DAVID S. TIERNEY, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, RBC
CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, CANACCORD GENUITY, INC. and OPPENHEIMER &
CO., INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00002-RP-HCA (S.D. Iowa,
January 12, 2017), request removal of the action from the Iowa
District Court in and for Johnson County to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Davenport
Division.

The case alleges violations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act.

KemPharm, Inc. -- http://www.kempharm.com/-- is a clinical-stage
specialty pharmaceutical company.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Stephen J. Holtman, Esq.
     SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER BERGMAN PLC
     115 Third Street SE, Suite 1200
     Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
     Phone: 319-366-7641
     Fax: 319-366-1917
     E-mail: sholtman@simmonsperrine.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces "Mukamal" Suit in E. Dist. of Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lincoln National
Corp. The case is captioned as BARRY MUKAMAL, AS TRUSTEE OF THE
MUTUAL BENEFITS KEEP POLICY TRUST; and MILGRIM INVESTMENTS, LP, A
NEW JERSEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. LINCOLN NATIONAL CORP., and LINCOLN
NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00234-GJP (E.D. Pa., Jan. 17, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon.
Gerald J. Pappert.

Lincoln National Corporation is a Fortune 250 American holding
company, which operates multiple insurance and investment
management businesses through subsidiary companies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
          BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Sq
          2001 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963 0600
          E-mail: jgolan@barrack.com


LINCOLN PROPERTY: "Amos" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Natalie Amos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lincoln Property Company, Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00037, (M.D. Tenn., January 10, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, commissions and bonuses, attorneys'
fees and costs, legal and equitable relief as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Business Manager at Gale
Lofts, a residential property managed by the Defendant in
Nashville, Tennessee. Amos claims overtime pay for hours rendered
in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Garrison, Esq.
      Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
      Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN &GARRISON, LLC
      Bank of America Plaza
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
             tmiles@barrettjohnston.com
             jfrank@barrettjohnston.com


LIONS GATE: Stipulation of Settlement Entered in "Levy" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. filed a Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 28, 2016, in
connection with a stipulation of settlement regarding the
settlement of certain litigation relating to the proposed merger
(the "Merger") of Orion Arm Acquisition Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a
wholly owned subsidiary of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. ("Lions
Gate"), with and into Starz, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of June 30, 2016, by and among Lions Gate, Starz
and Merger Sub (as amended, the "Merger Agreement").

The litigation to which the Stipulation relates is a purported
class action lawsuit, captioned Levy v. Malone, et al., Index No.
607759/2016 (the "Action"), filed on October 7, 2016 in New York
state court by a purported Lions Gate stockholder against Lions
Gate and the members of its board of directors. The Action
alleges, among other things, that the members of the Lions Gate
board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Lions Gate
stockholders and/or aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties
by others in connection with the proposed Merger, and that Lions
Gate and the members of its board of directors failed to disclose
material information in the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed
on September 7, 2016 on Form S-4 in connection with the proposed
Merger.

On November 23, 2016, Lions Gate and the other defendants in the
Action entered into the Stipulation with the plaintiff providing
for the settlement of the Action. The Stipulation contemplates,
among other things, that Lions Gate will make certain supplemental
disclosures relating to the proposed Merger. Although Lions Gate
and the other defendants deny the allegations made in the Action
and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under
applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and expense of
further litigation, Lions Gate agreed to make such supplemental
disclosures pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation.

The Stipulation is subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to Lions Gate's stockholders. A
hearing will be scheduled at which the New York state court 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 by stockholders of Lions Gate
challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement. There can be no assurance that
the court will approve the settlement contemplated by the
Stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the Stipulation may be terminated and the
defendants would continue to vigorously defend against the
allegations in the Action.

As widely reported, Lionsgate on Dec. 8 closed its $4.4 billion
cash and stock deal to acquire Starz, after the two companies'
shareholders approved the merger in a near-unanimous vote.


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Class Certification Briefing Due May 2
----------------------------------------------------------
Liquidity Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that in the case, Howard
v. Liquidity Services, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 14-1183 (D. D.C.
2014), class certification shall be fully briefed by May 2, 2017.

On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia (the "District Court") against the Company and its chief
executive officer, chief financial officer, and chief accounting
officer, on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's
common stock between February 1, 2012, and May 7, 2014. The
complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other
things, misrepresenting the Company's growth initiative, growth
potential, and financial and operating conditions, thereby
artificially inflating its share price, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys'
and experts' fees.

On October 14, 2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Depot et
Placement du Quebec and the Newport News Employees' Retirement
Fund as co-lead plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on December 15, 2014, which alleges substantially
similar claims but which does not name the chief accounting
officer as a defendant.

On March 2, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim or plead fraud with the
requisite particularity. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted that
motion in part and denied it in part.  On May 16, 2016, the
Company answered the amended complaint.

Pursuant to the scheduling order in this action, document
production shall be substantially complete by January 13, 2017,
class certification shall be fully briefed by May 2, 2017, all
fact discovery shall be completed by August 31, 2017, and expert
discovery shall be completed by February 23, 2018.

The Company believes the allegations in the amended complaint are
without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability,
if any, at this time.

Liquidity ervices operates a network of leading e-commerce
marketplaces that enable buyers and sellers to transact in an
efficient, automated environment offering over 500 product
categories.


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss & Stay Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Howard v. Liquidity Services, Inc., et al., Civ. No.
14-1183 (D. D.C. 2014), Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on December
21, 2016, entered a Minute Order:

     (1) denying, without prejudice to any future summary judgment
motion, the defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 (b), of the Court's Order
granting in part and denying in part the defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, and

     (2) denying as moot the defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery.

Judge Howell said, "The defendants' Motion for Reconsideration is
predicated on "sworn testimony from the four [confidential
witnesses] whose statements this Court principally relied on in
denying dismissal." Defs.' Mot. Reconsideration at 1, ECF No. 73.
According to the defendants, these confidential witnesses
disclaimed knowledge of or recanted the allegations attributed to
them in the complaint. The plaintiffs respond that, "while
Defendants claim to have extracted highly questionable
'recantations' from four of Plaintiffs' confidential witnesses
. . . (a claim in and of itself baseless and tethered to a gross
distortion of the record), a full thirteen of the twenty CWs
referenced in the Amended Complaint have come forward to vouch for
the accuracy of their statements." Pls.' Opp'n Mot.
Reconsideration at 1, ECF No. 77 (emphasis omitted).

"When "faced with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a Sec. 10(b)
action, courts must, as with any motion to dismiss for failure to
plead a claim on which relief can be granted, accept all factual
allegations in the complaint as true." Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor
Issues & Rights, Ltd. , 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); accord U.S. Sec.
& Exch. Comm'n v. e-Smart Techs. , Inc., 31 F. Supp. 3d 69, 74
(D.D.C. 2014) ("[T]he Court must 'treat the complaint's factual
allegations as true,' and must rely solely on matters set forth
therein." (quoting Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc. , 216 F.3d
1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000))).

"This is precisely what the Court did in granting in part and
denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, and there is no
compelling reason to revisit that ruling based on material that
the defendants obtained during discovery in the intervening
months. The argument that it was "clear error" for the Court not
to dismiss CFO James M. Rallo from this suit, Defs.' Mot.
Reconsideration at 26, likewise fails, since it is premised, in
significant part, on sworn testimony from a confidential witness,
rather than some shortcoming in the allegations in the complaint.
The defendants' motion to stay discovery is denied as moot in
light of the dismissal of the motion for reconsideration."


LONGWOOD ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Rest Period
--------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Sawyer, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Longwood Enterprises, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case
No. BC647009 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 17, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide second meal breaks,
third rest breaks, timely meal breaks and failure to provide
accurate and complete wage statements.

Longwood Enterprises, Inc. operates a consulting services company
located at 4032 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


METROPOLITAN FIELD: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wei Wang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Metropolitan Field Services, LLC and Sandy
Jiang, Case No. 700868/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 18, 2017),
seeks to recover minimum wage, overtime wages, spread of hours
compensation, damages for failure to provide wage statements,
damages for failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring,
liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees for
violations of the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a residential building located at
142-28, 38th Avenue, Flushing, New York 11354.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NOVO NORDISK: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Don Zuk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Novo Nordisk A/S, Lars Rebien Sorensen and Jesper
Brandgaard, Case No. 3:17-cv-00358 (D.N.J., January 18, 2017),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Novo Nordisk is a Danish multinational pharmaceutical company with
production facilities in eight countries, and affiliates or
offices in 75 countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      235 Main Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (973) 265-1600
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: ek@zlk.com


NRA GROUP: Gadime Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled AYLIN GADIME, an individual;
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NRA
GROUP, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company, d/b/a
NATIONAL RECOVERY AGENCY, a fictitious entity, Case No. 2:15-cv-
04841-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y.), moves the Court for an order certifying
the case to proceed as a class action and granting final approval
to the parties' class settlement agreement.

Specifically, the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: (1)
granting final approval of Settlement on the terms and conditions
set forth in the Parties' Settlement Agreement and the Court's
Order Granting Preliminary Approval; (2) finally certifying a
class, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3); (3) releasing NRA from all claims and dismissing with
prejudice all claims of Class Members who did not timely exclude
themselves from the Settlement; (4) approving payments to
Plaintiff, Class Members, and Class Counsel; (4) retaining
continuing jurisdiction over the settlement proceedings, to ensure
the effectuation thereof in accordance with the Agreement and
Final Approval Order; and (6) granting related orders and findings
as are set forth in the Proposed Final Approval Order.

In her amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that NRA engaged
in false, deceptive, and unfair collection practices, and thereby
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by mailing
consumers collection letters, which encourage, but which fail to:
(i) disclose a processing fee will be charged when making
payments; and (ii) explain how to make a payment without incurring
such fees.

On September 22, 2016, the Court entered an Order Granting
Preliminary Approval to the Parties' Class Settlement Agreement.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com

               - and -

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
          E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


PARTNERS FOR PAYMENT: Class Certification Sought in "Ashley" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby Ashley asks the Court to enter an order determining that
Counts II-III of the action titled KIRBY ASHLEY and PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS EX REL. KIRBY ASHLEY v. PARTNERS FOR PAYMENT
RELIEF, DE II, LLC; DANIEL O. BARHAM, and BARHAM LEGAL, LLC, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00149 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action
against the Defendants, and to certify classes pursuant to Rules
23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Count I is a private attorney general claim.  Count II is a class
claim against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  Count I alleges that the Defendants
represented that PPR was entitled to enforce notes and mortgages
against the Plaintiff and others, when this was not true because
PPR lacked a collection agency license.

The Plaintiff brings Count II on behalf of two classes, A and B.
Class A consists of (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses
(b) from whom defendant PPR attempted to collect money (c) on a
loan secured by property in which the consumer resided at the time
of the loan (d) where any collection activity occurred on or after
a date one year prior to the filing of this action.

Class B consists of (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses
(b) from whom defendants Daniel O. Barham or Barham Legal
attempted to collect money (c) on behalf of defendant PPR or any
other entity whose principal business is the acquisition of
delinquent residential mortgage loans but which did not have a
collection agency license (d) where any collection activity
occurred on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this
action.

Count III is an Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim against PPR that
alleges that the same conduct is unfair or deceptive in violation
of the ICFA.  The Plaintiff contends that both the
FDCPA and the ICFA prohibit "unfair" and "deceptive" acts and
practices, and were patterned after Section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act.

The Plaintiff brings Count III on behalf of a single class.  The
class consists of (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b)
from whom PPR sought to collect money, (c) on or after a date 3
years prior to the filing of this action.

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N7TZV6Ae

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAYMENT DATA: Motion to Dismiss "McFarland" Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Payment Data Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for
the quarterly report ended September 30, 2016, that the company's
motion to dismiss the suit by Michael McFarland remains pending.

On April 26, 2016, Michael McFarland, derivatively on behalf the
Company, re-filed a class-action lawsuit in United States District
Court, District of Nevada that was previously filed and dismissed.

The Company said, "The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment by the our Board of Directors and certain
executive officers and directors in connection with excessive and
unfair compensation paid or awarded during fiscal years 2013 and
2014. The lawsuit seeks disgorgement of excessive compensation as
well as damages in an unspecified amount."

"In July 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the case," the Company
said.

"We believe this claim is without merit and it is unlikely that a
loss will be incurred, therefore we have not accrued for a
potential loss. However, the outcome of the dispute is still
uncertain and it is possible we may incur legal fees and losses in
the future."

Payment Data provides integrated electronic payment processing
services to merchants and businesses, including all types of
Automated Clearing House, or ACH, processing, credit, prepaid card
and debit card-based processing services.


PER MAR: Faces "Bessy" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Wis. Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------
ANTONE BESSY and KANASHA WOODS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PER MAR SECURITY AND
RESEARCH CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00034 (W.D. Wis.,
January 13, 2017), alleges that Defendant maintains unlawful
policies of failing to pay Named Plaintiffs and members of the
putative classes overtime pay, travel pay, minimum wages, and
promised compensation, all in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Wisconsin law, as well as in breach of
employment contracts.

PER MAR SECURITY AND RESEARCH CORP. provides security services for
clients, including at events.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq.
     Yingtao Ho, Esq.
     Erin F. Medeiros, Esq.
     THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
     310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
     Milwaukee, WI 53203
     Phone: 414-271-4500
     Fax: 414-271-6308
     E-mail: nde@previant.com
             yh@previant.com
             efm@previant.com


PERFORMANCE FOOD: "Perez" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jorge Perez, on behalf of himself,
all others similarly situated, and the general public, the
Petitioner, v. Performance Food Group Inc., a Colorado
corporation; Vistar Transportation, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and Roma Food Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-02390, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
00357-JAK-SK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. John
A. Kronstadt.

Performance Food Group is an American company that was founded in
1875. The company distributes a range of food products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
           Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq.
           SETAREH LAW GROUP
           9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
           Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2937
           Telephone: (310) 888 7771
           Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
           E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                   thomas@setarehlaw.com

                - and -

           Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
           HAINES LAW GROUP
           2274 E. Maple Avenue
           El Segundo, CA 90245
           Telephone: (424) 292 2350
           Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
           E-mail: tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

           Sabrina Alexis Beldner, Esq.
           Sylvia Jihae Kim, Esq.
           Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
           MCGUIREWOODS LLP
           1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
           Los Angeles, CA 90067
           Telephone: (310) 956 3419
           Facsimile: (310) 315 8210
           E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
                   skim@mcguirewoods.com
                   mkane@mcguirewoods.com


PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: AA Suncoast Seeks to Certify Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled AA SUNCOAST CHIROPRACTIC
CLINIC, P.A., PALM HARBOR-WEST CHASE MEDICAL GROUP, P.A. d/b/a
TAMPA BAY SPINE SPECIALISTS, and SPINAL CORRECTION CENTERS, INC.,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE SELECT
INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION, Case No. 8:15-
cv-02543-RAL-MAP (M.D. Fla.), seek an order certifying two classes
and one subclass:

   A. All Qualified Providers who: (i) received an assignment of
      benefits from a Claimant under a Progressive PIP policy,
      (ii) provided initial or follow up medical services to a
      Claimant after January I, 2013, and (iii) were given notice
      by Progressive that available PIP benefits were reduced to
      $2,500 because of a Negative EMC Determination that
      Progressive obtained from a Non-treating Provider; and

   B. All Claimants who were notified that Progressive reduced
      available PIP benefits to $2,500 because of a Negative EMC
      Determination Progressive obtained from a Non-treating
      Provider.


   C. Sub-Class:

      All Qualified Provider Class Members: (i) who were not paid
      in full for their services, (ii) who made a pre-suit demand
      to Progressive for payment pursuant to Section 627.736(10),
      and (iii) where Progressive received documentation from a
      duly licensed physician, dentist, physician's assistant or
      advanced registered nurse practitioner that the Claimant
      had an Emergency Medical Condition.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and their counsel as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0ajjZVkx

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christa L. Collins, Esq.
          Kathryn Lee, Esq.
          HARMON, WOODS, PARKER, P.A.
          110 North 11th Street, 2nd Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 864-1762
          Facsimile: (813) 222-3616
          E-mail: service.clc@harmonwoodslaw.com
                  Service.kl@harmonwoodslaw.com

               - and -

          Lauren Meksraitis-Elliott, Esq.
          MICHAEL MEKSRAITIS, CHARTERED
          102 S. Westland Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 250-0885
          E-mail: lmeksraitis-elliott@verizon.net

               - and -

          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          FINN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          7431 114th Ave., Suite 104
          Largo, FL 33773-5119
          Telephone: (727) 214-0700
          E-mail: ameyer@finnlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq.
          Ross E. Linzer, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          One S.E. Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 982-5576
          Facsimile: (305) 374-5095
          E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com
                  ross.linzer@akerman.com

               - and -

          Margaret D. Mathews, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          401 East Jackson Street, Suite 1700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 209-5031
          Facsimile: (813) 223-2837
          E-mail Margaret.mathews@akerman.com


QUALITY CARE: Pension Fund Suit in Early Stages
-----------------------------------------------
The case, Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc.,
et al., is in its early stages and a lead plaintiff has not yet
been named, Quality Care Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

HCP Inc. has reported that, on May 9, 2016, a purported
stockholder of HCP filed a putative class action complaint,
Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against HCP, certain of its officers,
HCRMC, and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the
federal securities laws. The suit asserts claims under sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges
that HCP made certain false or misleading statements relating to
the value of and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by
allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing
fraud, as alleged by the DOJ in a pending suit against HCRMC
arising from the False Claims Act.

As the Boynton Beach action is in its early stages and a lead
plaintiff has not yet been named, the defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint. HCP has reported that it believes the
suit to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
it.

Quality Care Properties, Inc. is a recently formed Maryland
corporation that was created to hold the HCR ManorCare, Inc.
("HCRMC") portfolio ("HCRMC Properties"), 28 other healthcare
related properties ("non-HCRMC Properties," and, collectively with
the HCRMC Properties, the "Properties"), a deferred rent
obligation ("DRO") due from HCRMC under a master lease agreement
(the "Tranche B DRO") and an equity method investment in HCRMC
(together, the "QCP Business") previously held by HCP, Inc.
("HCP"). As of September 30, 2016, QCP was a wholly owned
subsidiary of HCP. Prior to or concurrent with the separation from
HCP that was completed on October 31, 2016, HCP transferred to
certain subsidiaries of QCP the equity of entities that hold the
QCP Business. Pursuant to the separation agreement, HCP effected
the separation by means of a pro rata distribution of
substantially all of the outstanding shares of QCP common stock to
HCP stockholders of record as of the close of business on October
24, 2016, the record date for the distribution (the "Spin-Off").


RAYMOND JAMES: Named as Defendant in Jay Peak Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the Company and
one if its financial advisors are named defendants in various
lawsuits related to an alleged fraudulent scheme conducted by
Ariel Quiros ("Quiros") and William Stenger ("Stenger") involving
the misuse of EB-5 investor funds in connection with the Jay Peak
ski resort in Vermont ("Jay Peak") and associated limited
partnerships.

The Company said, "Plaintiffs in the lawsuits allege that Quiros
misused $200 million of the amounts raised by the limited
partnerships and misappropriated $50 million for his personal
benefit. The plaintiffs also generally allege some combination of
the following: that we or our subsidiaries or employees were
negligent in supervision, breached fiduciary duty, conspired to
breach, and aided and abetted the breach of, fiduciary duty,
committed, or aided and abetted, fraud and/or fraudulent
inducement, engaged in or facilitated fraudulent transfers,
committed conversion, civil theft, and/or commingled investor
funds."

"There are six civil court actions pending in which we or one of
our subsidiaries are named:

   * On May 3, 2016, Alexandre Daccache filed a purported
consolidated class action on behalf of approximately 836
individual investors in seven Jay Peak limited partnerships in the
U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
styled Daccache, et al. v. Raymond James Financial, Inc. The
plaintiffs demand, among other things, damages in the amount of
$250 million, treble damages under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and unspecified punitive
damages.

   * On May 20, 2016, Michael I. Goldberg, a court-appointed
receiver for Jay Peak, filed a complaint against the company and
other defendants in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, styled Michael I. Goldberg, as
Receiver v. Raymond James Financial, Inc. et al. The complaint
seeks, among other relief, compensatory damages and treble damages
under RICO.

   * On June 3, 2016, Milos Citakovic and other individual
investors filed a complaint against RJ&A and a financial advisor
in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County,
Florida, styled Citakovic v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and
Joel Burstein. The plaintiffs seek, among other things,
compensatory damages.

   * On July 26, 2016, Caterina Calero and other individual
investors filed a complaint against RJ&A and other defendants in
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida,
styled Caterina Gonzalez Calero v. Raymond James & Associates,
Inc. et al. ("Calero"). The complaint seeks, among other things,
compensatory damages and treble damages for alleged violations of
the Florida civil theft statute.

   * On October 26, 2016, Caroline Walters and other individual
investors filed a complaint against RJ&A in the Circuit Court of
the 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida,
styled Caroline Walters, et al. v. Raymond James & Associates,
Inc. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages
in an undetermined amount and treble damages for alleged RICO
violations.

   * On November 7, 2016, Zheng Zhang and other individual
investors filed a complaint against RJ&A, and certain other
defendants, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, styled Zheng Zhang, et al. v. Raymond James &
Associates, Inc., Joel Burstein and Ariel Quiros. The plaintiffs
seek, among other things, compensatory damages and punitive
damages in an undetermined amount.

"Given the early stage of the cases, the complexity of the
forensic accounting necessary to determine the amount of actual
investor losses, the identification and availability of any assets
for recovery by the plaintiffs and the potential for insurance
coverage, a range of possible loss in excess of the amount accrued
cannot be estimated. While there can be no assurance that we will
be successful, we intend to vigorously defend the claims against
us," the Company said.

Raymond James Financial, Inc. ("RJF" or the "Company") is a
financial holding company whose broker-dealer subsidiaries are
engaged in various financial services businesses, including the
underwriting, distribution, trading and brokerage of equity and
debt securities and the sale of mutual funds and other investment
products. In addition, other subsidiaries of RJF provide
investment management services for retail and institutional
clients, corporate and retail banking, and trust services.


ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in Colorado Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Root9B Technologies, Inc. in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, that an
appeal is pending related to a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.

The Company and two senior executives of the Company are named as
defendants (the "Defendants") in a class action proceeding filed
on June 23, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  On September 24, 2015, the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to
transfer the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.

On October 14, 2015, the Court appointed David Hampton as Lead
Plaintiff and approved Hampton's selection of the law firm Levi &
Korsinsky LLP as Lead Counsel.  Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on January 4, 2016.  The Amended Complaint alleges
violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between
October 17, 2014 and June 15, 2015.  In general, the Amended
Complaint alleges that false or misleading statements were made or
that there was a failure to make appropriate disclosures
concerning the Company's cyber security business and products.

On February 18, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed an opposition to
the motion to dismiss and the Company replied on May 4, 2016.

On August 3, 2016, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a
recommendation that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion to strike
certain exhibits from Defendants' motion to dismiss, and on August
4, 2016, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that
the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On September 21, 2016 the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado dismissed, with prejudice, the class action
suit. On October 21, 2016 the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
to the decision. The clerk of the court notified the parties of
the filing for appeal and recorded the opening on November 7,
2016.

The Plaintiff's have 40 days thereafter to file their brief, and
the Defendants then have 30 days there after to respond to the
Plaintiff's brief.

"We cannot predict the outcome of this appeal; however, the
Company believes the appeal lacks merit.  No liability has been
recorded in the financial statements for this matter," the Company
said.


SCI DIRECT: Certification of Class Sought in "Allard" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled LINDA ALLARD, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. SCI DIRECT, INC.
d/b/a NEPTUNE SOCIETY, Case No. 3:16-cv-01033 (M.D. Tenn.), files
with the Court her motion for class certification.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F8K6tIak

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
          THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC
          1704 Maxwell Drive
          Wall, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 455-9737
          Facsimile: (732) 709-5150
          E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com

               - and -

          T. Blaine Dixon, Esq.
          KENNEDY LAW FIRM, PLLC
          127 South Third Street
          Clarksville, TN 37040
          Telephone: (931) 645-9900
          Facsimile: (931) 920-3300
          E-mail: bdixon@klflaw.net


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Suit Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 28, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the Company and
its Chief Executive Officer dispute the plaintiffs' assertions and
intend to vigorously defend the consolidated action in the case,
In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation.

The Company said, "In connection with the sale of wild bird food
products that were the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, we,
along with our Chief Executive Officer, have been named as
defendants in four putative class actions filed on and after June
27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California as In re
Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-
JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law
claims associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food
products and a plea agreement entered into in previously pending
government proceedings associated with such sales. The plaintiffs
allege, among other things, a purported class action on behalf of
all persons and entities in the United States who purchased
certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert hundreds of
millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual, compensatory,
consequential, and restitution), punitive and treble damages;
injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest; and costs and attorneys' fees."

"The Company and our Chief Executive Officer dispute the
plaintiffs' assertions and intend to vigorously defend the
consolidated action. At this point in the proceedings, it is not
currently possible to reasonably estimate a probable loss, if any,
associated with the action and, accordingly, no reserves have been
recorded in our consolidated financial statements with respect to
the action. There can be no assurance that this action, whether as
a result of an adverse outcome or as a result of significant
defense costs, will not have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."

The Company is a manufacturer and marketer of branded consumer
lawn and garden products.


SIGNET JEWELERS: 10,345 Employees Opt In to Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that 10,345 current
and former employees have submitted consent forms to opt in to the
collective action.

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against
SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level
employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and
promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the
District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where
the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The
Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed
the motion.

A hearing on the class certification motion was held in late
February 2014. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class
Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide
hearing Claimants' disparate impact declaratory and injunctive
relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July
22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants' compensation
claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants'
promotion claims.

The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For
Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants'
emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on
February 18, 2015.

Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an
order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for
Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment
in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI filed its opposition to
Claimants' Motion for Reconsideration on March 4, 2015.

Claimants' reply was filed on March 16, 2015. Claimants' Motion
was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015. SJI filed with the
US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion
to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award on March 3,
2015. Claimants' opposition was filed on March 23, 2015 and SJI's
reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI's motion was heard on May 4,
2015.

On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the
Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in
part. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA
Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Claimants filed their
opposition on December 2, 2015.

On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of the
Southern District's November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order. The
arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on
February 22, 2016.

SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with the Second Circuit
on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed and oral argument
was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on
November 2, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA
Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion
for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the
Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its
opposition on May 12, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on May 22,
2015. Claimants' motion was granted on June 15, 2015.

Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional Certification of
Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on
March 6, 2015. SJI's opposition was filed on May 1, 2015.
Claimants filed their reply on June 5, 2015. The arbitrator heard
oral argument on Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on
February 29, 2016, issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action
Conditional Certification Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For
Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, conditionally certifying
Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as a collective action, and
tolling the statute of limitations on EPA claims to October 16,
2003 to ninety days after notice issues to the putative members of
the collective action. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay
Arbitration Pending The District Court's Consideration Of
Respondent's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act
Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re
Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March
10, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay
Arbitration Pending The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling's
Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action
Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For
Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016. Claimants
filed their opposition on April 4, 2016. The arbitrator denied
SJI's Motion on April 5, 2016. On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with
the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a
Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action
Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For
Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period. Claimants filed their
opposition brief on April 11, 2016, SJI filed its reply on April
20, 2016, and oral argument was heard on SJI's Motion on May 11,
2016.

SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016. On May 31, 2016, SJI
filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff's opinion and order to
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. SJI's brief was filed
September 13, 2016, and Claimants' brief is due on December 15,
2016. Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination
Award on November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator
entered an order amending the Title VII class certification award
to preclude class members from requesting exclusion from the
injunctive and declaratory relief class certified in the
arbitration. The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management
Plan on April 5, 2016, and ordered into effect the parties'
Stipulation Regarding Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action
And Related Notice Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI
filed in the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016.
Claimants' opposition was filed on June 3, 2016. The matter was
fully briefed and oral argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The
parties await a ruling on the motion. Notice to EPA collective
action members was issued on May 3, 2016, and the opt-in period
for these notice recipients closed on August 1, 2016. At this
time, 10,345 current and former employees have submitted consent
forms to opt in to the collective action.

Signet Jewelers Limited is the world's largest retailer of diamond
jewelry.


SIGNET JEWELERS: "Tapia" Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that in the case,
Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation, the class has not yet received
notice of the court's certification ruling and has not yet been
provided the opportunity to opt in or opt out.

On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and
Motion for Class Certification in the Naomi Tapia v. Zale
Corporation litigation. On May 22, 2015, the Company filed
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 and Collective Action
Certification under 29 U.SC. Sec.216(b). Plaintiff filed her Reply
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification on June 3, 2015.

On April 6, 2016, the Court conditionally certified an opt-in
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of all
current and former hourly employees of Zale Delaware Inc. d/b/a
Zale Corporation who were designated by Zale as nonexempt and who
worked in a Zale retail store in the United States at any time
from July 3, 2010 to the present. Additionally, the court
certified an opt-out class action of the remaining claims on
behalf of all current and former hourly employees of Zale Delaware
Inc. d/b/a Zale Corporation who were designated by Zale as
nonexempt, and worked in a Zale retail store in the State of
California at any time from July 3, 2009 through the present.

At this time, the class has not yet received notice of the ruling
and has not yet been provided the opportunity to opt in or opt
out. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position in this
litigation.

At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated.

Signet Jewelers Limited is the world's largest retailer of diamond
jewelry.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Still Faces Dube and Spasov Shareholder Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that the Company is
defending against the Dube and Spasov shareholder actions.

On August 25, 2016, Susan Dube filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and its Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer, purportedly on behalf of
stockholders that acquired the Company's securities between
January 7, 2016, and June 3, 2016, inclusive (Dube v. Signet
Jewelers Limited, et al., Civ. No. 16-6728 (S.D.N.Y.)).

On August 31, 2016, Lyubomir Spasov filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging identical claims against the Company
and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
(Spasov v. Signet Jewelers Limited, et al., Civ. No. 16-06861
(S.D.N.Y.)).

On September 16, 2016, the two complaints were consolidated under
case number 16-CV-6728. The complaints allege that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the Company's
business and earnings by failing to disclose that the Company was
allegedly experiencing difficulty ensuring the safety of
customer's jewelry while in Signet's custody for repairs, a drop-
off in customer confidence, and increased competitive pressures.
Plaintiffs claim that as a result of the alleged
misrepresentations, the Company's share price was artificially
inflated.  The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability,
if any, at this time.

Signet Jewelers Limited is the world's largest retailer of diamond
jewelry.


SIMPLY MAC: Faces "Lotz" Suit for Misclassifying Store Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS LOTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. SIMPLY MAC, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00132 (D. Col., January 14, 2017), alleges that Defendant
misclassified Store Managers as exempt under federal overtime laws
and failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant owns and operates a chain of retail stores under the
trademark "Simply Mac." Defendant describes itself as a "Premier
Apple Partner." Defendant offers sales and service of Apple
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Phone: (561) 447-8888
     Fax: (561) 447-8831
     E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
             aquiles@shavitzlaw.com


SPAR GROUP: Field Specialists' Class Suit Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
SPAR Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending against a class action lawsuit in California state court
regarding the treatment of its Field Specialists as independent
contractors.

The Company executes the services it provides to its domestic
clients through independent field merchandising, auditing,
assembly and other specialists (each a "Field Specialist"), the
vast majority of whom are provided by SBS. The appropriateness of
SBS's treatment of its Field Specialists as independent
contractors has been periodically subject to challenge (both
currently and historically) by various states and others, and
SBS's expenses of defending those challenges and other litigation
have been paid by the Company (consistent with their Prior
Agreements and to endeavor to manage related potential risks).
That treatment is being challenged currently in a California class
action lawsuit where the State Court separated the issues of
independent contractor status and damages, tried the status issue
first, and ruled that the Field Specialists were employees because
(among other things) they failed to sufficiently exercise their
independence. The second stage of the trial will be the
determination of damages, if any.

The Company said, "When a decision has been reached on those
damages, the liability and damage decisions can be appealed to a
higher court. There can be no assurance that SBS will succeed in
defending any such challenge, the legal expenses of prolonged
litigation and appeals could continue to be (and have from time to
time been) significant, and any adverse determination could
increase the Company's costs of doing business."

The Company is a supplier of merchandising and other marketing
services throughout the United States and internationally.


TESORO REFINING: "Azpeitia" Sues Over Missed Breaks, No Paystubs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Azpeitia, Eileen Foster, Antonio Garcia, and Samantha Scott,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and
former employees, Plaintiffs, v. Tesoro Refining and Marketing
Company LLC, Tesoro Logistics GP, LLC and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00123, (N.D. Cal., January
10, 2017), seek relief for breach of the Defendants' legal
obligations to authorize and permit rest periods and to furnish
timely and accurate wage statements. The suit seeks restitution
and injunctive relief pursuant to California Labor Code and
applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Plaintiffs are/were employed as operators at Defendants' Golden
Eagle facility located in Martinez, California and Los Angeles
Refinery, located in Carson and Wilmington, California.

Tesoro Refining and Marketing and Tesoro Logistics own and/or
operate the Golden Eagle facility located in Martinez, California.
The Golden Eagle facility includes an oil refinery, chemical plant
and distribution facilities that are all located in Martinez,
California as well as the Los Angeles Refinery that includes an
oil refinery, sulfur plant and distribution facilities in Carson
and Wilmington, California.

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Jay Smith, Esq.
       Joshua F. Young, Esq.
       GILBERT & SACKMAN A LAW CORPORATION
       3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
       Los Angeles, CA 90010
       Telephone: (323) 938-3000
       Fax: (323) 937-9139
       Email: js@gslaw.org
              jyoung@gslaw.org

              - and -

       Randy Renick, Esq.
       Cornelia Dai, Esq.
       HADSELL STORMER & RENICK, LLP
       128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
       Pasadena, CA 91103-3645
       Telephone: (626) 585-9600
       Fax: (626) 577-7079
       Email: rrr@hadsellstormer.com
              cdai@hadsellstormer.com


TEXTURA CORP: Kelsey Moves for Certification of Stockholders Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled FRED KELSEY, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PATRICK J. ALLIN,
JILLIAN SHEEHAN, and TEXTURA CORPORATION, Case No. 1:14-cv-07837
(N.D. Ill.), moves the Court for entry of an order certifying the
action as a class action on behalf of this class:

     All persons who purchased the common stock of Textura
     Corporation ("Textura") between June 7, 2013 and January 7,
     2014, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby.
     Excluded from the Class are: (a) persons who suffered no
     compensable losses, e.g., those who bought Textura
     securities during the Class Period but sold prior to any
     corrective disclosure; and (b) Defendants, the officers and
     directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of
     their immediate families and their legal representatives,
     heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which
     Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

Fred Kelsey also asks to be appointed as class representative, and
for the Court to appoint The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as lead class
counsel, and Heffner & Hurst as liaison counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Y4p2Y8Rj

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Matthew T. Heffner, Esq.
          HEFFNER & HURST
          30 North LaSalle Street, Twelfth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-3466
          Facsimile: (312) 346-2829
          E-mail: mheffner@shhllp.com


TOWNHOUSE DINER: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
OCTAVIO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against CHRIS AND KATHY RESTAURANT INC.
(d/b/a TOWNHOUSE DINER) and CHRIS KONIDARIS Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00295 (S.D.N.Y. January 13, 2017), was brought for alleged
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for alleged violations of the New York Labor
Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New
York Commissioner of Labor.

Townhouse Diner is a diner owned by Chris Konidaris.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UGI CORP: Motion for Written Opinion and for Rehearing Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that AmeriGas Partners,
L.P.'s Motion for Written Opinion and for Rehearing En Banc with
are pending.

In connection with AmeriGas Partners, L.P. ("AmeriGas Partners" or
the "Partnership")'s 2012 acquisition of the subsidiaries of
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. ("ETP") that operated ETP's propane
distribution business ("Heritage Propane"), the Partnership became
party to a class action lawsuit that was filed against Heritage
Operating, L.P. in 2005 by Alfred L. Williams, II, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated. The class action
lawsuit alleged, among other things, wrongful collection of tank
rental payments from legacy customers of People's Gas, which was
acquired by Heritage Propane in 2000.

In 2010, the Florida District Court certified the class and in
January 2015, the Florida District Court awarded the class
approximately $18. In April 2016, the Partnership appealed the
verdict to the Florida Second District Court of Appeals (the
"Second DCA") and, in September 2016, the Second DCA affirmed the
verdict without opinion.

Prior to the Second DCA's action in the case, we believed that the
likelihood of the Second DCA affirming the Florida District
Court's decision was remote. As a result of the Second DCA's
actions, in September 2016, the Partnership recorded a $15.0
adjustment to its litigation accrual to reflect the full amount of
the award plus associated interest.

In October 2016, the Partnership filed a Motion for Written
Opinion and for Rehearing En Banc with the Second DCA, which
motions are still pending.

"We believe we have strong arguments to support the aforementioned
motions," the Company said.


UGI CORP: Indirect Purchasers' Appeal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that an appeal by indirect
purchasers remains pending the Eighth Circuit.

Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class
action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the
Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their
direct and indirect customers.  The class action lawsuits allege,
among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor
colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable
propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to
persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept
that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to
retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws.  The claims seek treble damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the
putative classes.

On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Division of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri ("District Court").

In July 2015, the District Court dismissed all claims brought by
direct customers and all claims other than those for injunctive
relief brought by indirect customers.  The direct customers filed
an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit ("Eighth Circuit") and in August 2016, the Eighth Circuit
affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the direct customer's
claims against the Partnership/UGI Corporation. The direct
customers filed a petition requesting an en banc review of the
Eighth Circuit decision, which is still pending. The indirect
customers filed an amended complaint claiming injunctive relief
and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law.

In September 2016, the District Court dismissed the amended
complaint in its entirety. The indirect purchasers appealed this
decision to the Eighth Circuit, and the appeal is still pending.

On July 21, 2016, several new indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed
an antitrust class action lawsuit against the Partnership in the
Western District of Missouri.

The new indirect purchaser class action lawsuit was dismissed in
September 2016 and certain indirect purchaser plaintiffs appealed
this decision, consolidating their appeal with the indirect
purchaser appeal that is pending in the Eighth Circuit.

"We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising
from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the
claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company
said.


UNION TURNPIKE: "Takhalov" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eden Takhalov, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. Union Turnpike Cafe, Inc., Igor Isacharov, and Ben
Isacharov, Case No. 700815/2017 (N.Y. Super. Ct., January 18,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unlawfully retained
gratuities, and other penalties pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 187-20
Union Turnpike, Fresh Meadows, New York, 11366.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


UNITED ROAD: Faces "Champagne" Sued Over Excessive Towing Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Jean Champagne, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. United Road Towing, Inc. and Pat's Towing,
Inc., Case No. 17-0158 (Mass. Cmmw., January 17, 2017), is brought
on behalf of all persons charged excessing towing fees in
Massachusetts by URT, and any of its brands, including PTI and
Export Towing.

The Defendants own and operate towing companies in the states of
California, Nevada, Texas, Minnesota, Illinois, Tennessee, Florida
and Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      Anthony Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
      99 High St., Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 738-7080
      E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
              anthony@broderick-law.com

         - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE, P.C.
      1 South Avenue, Suite 3
      Natick, MA 01760
      Telephone: (508)655-1415
      E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: "Condry" Claims Denial of Service for Women
---------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL CONDRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.; UnitedHealthcare,
Inc.; UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company; and, UnitedHealthcare
Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00183-DMR (N.D. Cal.,
January 13, 2017), alleges that Defendants have wrongfully denied
and continue to deny Plaintiff and the members of the Class access
to and coverage for a vital women's preventive service --
breastfeeding support, supplies and counseling -- which coverage
is mandated by The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a diversified managed health
care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kristen Law Sagafi, Esq.
     TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
     483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
     Oakland, CA 94607
     Phone: (510) 254-6808
     Fax: (202) 973-0950
     E-mail: ksagafi@tzlegal.com

        - and -

     Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
     Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith, Esq.
     Stephanie E. Saunders, Esq.
     CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
     361 W. Lancaster Avenue
     Haverford, PA 19041
     Phone: (610) 642-8500
     Fax: (610) 649-3633
     E-mail: NEC@chimicles.com
             KMD@chimicles.com
             SES@chimicles.com


US POSTAL: Greene et al. Seek to Recoup OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHEKEERA GREENE, THOMAS HOUFF, MICAHEL MILNER, INEASE INMON,
JAQUANTE GREEN, DEVON MCKENZIE, JR., JACQUELINE LEWIS, PETER
BASSETT, JOSHUA CARTER, ASHLEE FLEMING, HERMAN GOODMAN, RYEISHA
HART, SARAH NEAL, ZACHARY PARRY, TERRY PERSON, JR., KIMBERLY
PURYEAR, AND MAURICE ANDERSON on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL
SERVICE Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00026-REP (E.D. Va., January
13, 2017), seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and to
recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation, and liquidated
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant United States Postal Service is an independent entity of
the United States government responsible for providing postal
service in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
     Zev H. Antell, Esq.
     Paul M. Falabella, Esq.
     BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
     140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
     Richmond, VA 23219
     Phone: (804) 648-4848
     Fax: (804) 237-0413
     Email: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
            zev.antell@butlerroyals.com
            paul.falabella@butlerroyals.com


US STANDARD: Court Signs Accord Certifying "Echegoyen" Suit Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kevin McNulty signed the stipulation and order
conditionally certifying the collective action titled GLADYS
ECHEGOYEN individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. U.S. STANDARD HOLDINGS TRUST, LLC d/b/a STANDARD HOLDINGS
MANAGEMENT, LLC, STANDARD HOLDINGS MANAGEMENT, LLC, STANDARD
HOLDINGS REALTY GROUP LLC, and ANDRES GARCIA, Case No. 2:15-cv-
06382-KM-MAH (D.N.J.).

The Court conditionally certifies a collective action of all
nonexempt employees, who worked for Defendants between August 25,
2012, and the present.  The Court also approves the proposed
Notice of Lawsuit.  The Defendants are directed to produce to the
Plaintiff within 10 business days a list of names, mailing
addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative
class members.

The Plaintiff will mail the Notice of Lawsuit to potential opt-in
Plaintiffs by February 6, 2017.  The Defendants will post a copy
of the Notice of Lawsuit in a conspicuous location at its
principal place of business located in Fort Lee, New Jersey.  The
Plaintiff may mail a Reminder to potential opt-in Plaintiffs no
later than March 1, 2017.

Potential opt-in Plaintiffs are permitted until 50 days after the
deadline to mail the Notice of Lawsuit, that is by March 28, 2017,
to file a Consent to Sue form to join the case.

The Defendants reserve the right to move for decertification of
the collective action after the close of fact discovery.

A copy of the Stipulation and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dSpfH6xd

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          SERRINS FISHER LLP
          233 Broadway, Suite 2340
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 571-0700
          E-mail: michael@serrinsfisher.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael K. Chong, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL K. CHONG, LLC
          2 Executive Drive, Suite 720
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Telephone: (201) 708-6675
          Facsimile: (201) 708-6676
          E-mail: MKC@mkclawgroup.com


VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Thomas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Susan Thomas, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Vital Recovery Services, Inc., First Financial Investment Fund V,
LLC, First Financial Investment Fund Holdings, LLC, and First
Financial Investment Fund I, the Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-
00330 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2017).

The Defendant is a third-party collection agency.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


WAWA INC: Gervasio et al. Allege Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Anthony Gervasio, Richard Bongiovanni, Michael Dinse and James
Cloud, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarl
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wawa, Inc. and Wild Goose Holding Co.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00245-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., January 12,
2016), seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

Wawa, Inc. -- https://www.wawa.com/ -- owns and operates a chain
of convenience retail stores.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph D. Monaco, III, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH MONACO, P.C.
     1317 Morris Avenue
     Union, NJ 07083
     Phone: (212) 486-4244
     Fax: (646) 807-4749

        - and -

     Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
     David A. Roth, Esq.
     Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
     HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH PLLC
     192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 545-1199
     Fax: (212) 532-3801
     E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
             cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
             droth@hgrlawyers.com


WGL HOLDINGS: Defending Class Suit Over Apartment Fire
------------------------------------------------------
WGL Holdings, Inc. and Washington Gas Light Company said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30,
2016, that the Company is defending against a class action lawsuit
related to an explosion and fire at an apartment complex.

Washington Gas continues to support the investigation by the NTSB
into the August 10, 2016 explosion and fire at an apartment
complex on Arliss Street in Silver Spring, Maryland.

On November 2, 2016, two civil actions were filed in the District
of Columbia Superior Court against WGL Holdings and Washington Gas
(as well as a property management company that is not affiliated
with WGL Holdings or Washington Gas), by residents of an apartment
complex on Arliss Street in Silver Spring Maryland, relating to
the August 10, 2016 incident that occurred at the apartment
complex.

In one lawsuit, 29 plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for, among
others, wrongful death and personal injury.  The other action is a
class action suit seeking total damages stated to be less than $5
million for, among others, property damage and various counts
relating to the loss of the use of the premises.  Both actions
allege causes of action for negligence, product liability, and
declaratory relief.

The Company said, "We also understand from press reports that
additional civil actions relating to this incident have been filed
on behalf of individual residents of the apartment complex, but we
have yet to be served for any such additional actions. We maintain
excess liability insurance coverage from highly-rated insurers,
subject to a nominal self-insured retention. We believe that this
coverage will be sufficient to cover any significant liability to
it that may result from this incident. Washington Gas was invited
by the NTSB to be a party to the investigation and in that
capacity continues to work closely with the NTSB to help determine
the cause of this incident. Information about our obligations as a
signed party to the investigation can be found in the form of the
Certificate of Party Representation, which is available on the
investigations page of the NTSB website -- https://is.gd/a9qrlS --
and 49 CFR 831.13."

Through its wholly owned subsidiaries, the Company sells and
delivers natural gas and provide energy-related products and
services to customers primarily in the District of Columbia and
the surrounding metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia,
although our non-utility segments provide various energy services
across the United States.


WILD BLUE: "Brown" Suit Seeks Overtime, Deductions, Late Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ahsinet Brown, Ashley Thompson, Precious Jackson, Tynise Watson
and Sandra Adarquah, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wild Blue Orchid, Inc. (d/b/a
Chocolat), Moca Bar and Grill, Inc. and Leon Ellis, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00169, (S.D. N.Y., January 10, 2017), seeks
compensatory damages, including back pay, front pay, punitive and
liquidated damages, damages for emotional distress, liquidated
damages, penalties, costs of action including expert fees, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and such
other and further legal and equitable relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Chocolat and Moca are restaurant and bar/lounge located at 2223
and 2210 Frederick Douglass Blvd., New York, NY 10026 owned and
operated by Wild Blue Orchid, Inc. owned by Ellis. Ahsinet Brown,
Ashley Thompson, Precious Jackson, Tynise Watson and Sandra
Adarquah worked as hostesses. They complain about unpaid overtime,
unlawful meal deductions and late salaries.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald Cohen, Esq.
      Joshua Fitch, Esq.
      Ilyssa Fuchs, Esq.
      COHEN & FITCH LLP
      233 Broadway, Suite 1800
      New York, NY 10279
      Tel: (212) 374-9115
      Email: gcohen@cohenfitch.com
             jfitch@cohenfitch.com
             ifuchs@cohenfitch.com


WINDY CITY: Sued Over Excessive Medical Equipment Rental Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yahaira Liera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Windy City Medical Specialists, LLC and Advanced
Billing Collection Specialists, Inc., Case No. 2017CH00649 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., January 17, 2017), is brought on behalf of all
individuals who rented medical equipment from Windy City and
Advanced who were charged unreasonable rates for medical equipment
in excess of the rates charged for like and similar equipment and
who were improperly charged for medical equipment after the
equipment had been returned.

The Defendants supply medical equipment and supplies for rent or
purchase to consumers, through their medical providers, and
provide marketing, web design, networking, consulting and billing
services to medical providers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry D. Drury, Esq.
      LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
      100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 346-7950
      Facsimile: (312) 346-5777
      E-mail: ldd@larrvdrurv.com


WOODMERE CLUB: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
----------------------------------------------------------
Adalberto Rodriguez and Jose Rodriguez-Vargas, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated v. Woodmere Club, Inc.
d/b/a Woodmere Country Club, James Hallquist, and John Booth, Case
No. 600442/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 17, 2017), seeks to
redress the economic loss suffered by the Plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated as a result of the Defendants' "rounding
off" of the time actually worked by their employees each day,
which resulted in the failure to pay all wages due under the New
York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a private country club located at
99 Meadow Drive, Woodmere, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil M. Frank, Esq.
      FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      500 Bi-County Boulevard, Suite 465
      Farmingdale, NY 11735
      Telephone: (631)756-0400
      Facsimile: (631)756-0547
      E-mail: Nfrank@laborlaws.com


ZILLOW GROUP: Has Settlement with Labor Department
--------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 28, 2016, that the
Company has entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S.
Department of Labor that will resolve the DOL's compliance review.

On May 5, 2016, Zillow, Inc. ("Zillow") agreed to settle a class
action lawsuit in the United Stated District Court, Central
District of California, with the caption Ian Freeman vs. Zillow,
Inc., which involved allegations that Zillow failed to provide
meal and rest breaks, failed to pay overtime, and failed to keep
accurate records of employee's hours worked, in compliance with
the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and California law with
respect to certain inside sales consultants.

The settlement, which includes payment by Zillow of up to
$6,000,000, is subject to court approval and contingent upon
Zillow's resolution of a review by the Wage and Hour Division of
the U.S. Department of Labor (the "DOL") of Zillow's compliance
with certain wage and hour laws with respect to Zillow inside
sales consultants employed in its California and Washington
offices during a two year period between 2013 and 2015.

On November 28, 2016, Zillow entered into a settlement agreement
with the DOL that will resolve the DOL's compliance review. Under
the terms of the settlement agreement, Zillow agreed that it will
make the voluntary payments contemplated by the Freeman settlement
and establish and maintain certain procedures to promote future
compliance with the FLSA. The settlement agreement with the DOL
does not require Zillow to make any payments which are in addition
to those contemplated by the Freeman settlement.

Zillow has not admitted liability with respect to either the DOL
settlement or the Freeman settlement.


                            *********

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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. 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  * * *