CAR_Public/170208.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, February 8, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 28



                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY HEALTH: Able Home Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
ACCURA RESTORATION: Faces "Tolalpa" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y.
AETNA INC: Judge's Ruling on Merger Prompts Class-Action Lawsuit
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Rashid" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ALTRIA GROUP: 10 International Tobacco-Related Cases Pending

ALTRIA GROUP: 9 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial
ALTRIA GROUP: 105 Engle Progeny Cases Resulted in Verdicts
ALTRIA GROUP: "Donovan" Class Action Concluded
ALTRIA GROUP: 8 Lights & Ultra Lights Cases Pending
ALTRIA GROUP: Missouri Court Dismissed PM USA's Cross-Appeal

ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Paid $45 Million in "Miner" Case
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Miller" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Baldwin" Suit Over TCPA Violations
APCAR COLLEGE: Meyer Seeks to Certify Class of Reserve Residents
APPLE INC: Forced Users to Ugrade Software, Suit Says

ATHENAHEALTH INC: Federal Court Stay Remains in Effect
ATLANTIC CITY, NJ: International Association Suit Moved to D.N.J.
AUDIOEYE INC: Court to Hold Final Settlement Hearing on May 8
BAY AREA TOLL: Bid to Dismiss "Kelly" Suit Underway
BECTON DICKINSON: Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Drops Appeal

BIG CITY YONKERS: Faces "Santos" Suit Over FLSA, NY Labor Laws
BISTRO 1285: Faces "Martinez" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
BOFI HOLDING: Seeks to Dismiss Second Amended Class Action Suit
BOOT BARN: Defending Employee Class Suits in Fresno County
BRIGHT HOUSE: Faces "Memmer" Suit in Florida Circuit Court

BROADCOM CORP: Settled Stockholder Class-Action Over Avago Merger
C & H SUGAR: Faces "Strong" Suit in Northern Dist. of California
C.R. ENGLAND: Court Certifies Truck Drivers' Class Action
CALIBER HOME: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for May 31
CANADA: Offers to Negotiate Settlement for '60s Scoop Case

CHARLES SUAREZ: Asks Court to Exclude Engineer's Testimony
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Still Defends Securities Litigation
CROWN RESORTS: Law Firm Urges Shareholders to Launch Class Suit
CUMBERLAND PEDIATRIC: "Barnes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
DAVITA INC: April 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set

DETROIT, MI: No Summary Judgment Entered in "Davis" Suit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Settles Suit Over Tax Lien Statute
DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Flaum Seeks Cert. of Subway Customers Class
DPC NEW: Faces "Sanchez" Lawsuit Under FLSA, New York Labor Law
EAST COAST: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Reyes" Suit

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Taylor" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
EXTREME NETWORKS: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss on Feb. 9
FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL: Faces Mr. Ticket Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FOWLER HEIN: Faces "Johnson" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Motion to Dismiss "Cryer" Suit Denied

G&K SERVICES: "Klein" Class Action Dismissed
GARY M. SINGER: Faces "Adjoda" Suit in S.D. Florida
GC SERVICES: Faces "Stern" Suit in Eastern District of New York
GIGAMON INC: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit
GILT GROUPE: Faces "Lucia" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

GOLDMONT REALTY: Faces "Romero" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
GREENSPOON MARDER: Parties Directed to File Stipulation to Dismiss
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Underway in Securities Litigation
HARTFORD CASUALTY: Johnson Moves to Certify Class and Subclass
HOSPITAL MEDIA: Faces Kenneth A. Thomas Suit in Dist. of Conn.

JON E. LITSCHER: Faces "Vega" Suit in Western Dist. of Wisconsin
K12 INC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint
KB HOME: Paid $7.5 Million in Wage and Hour Litigation
KELLY SERVICES: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Holmes" Suit
KLA-TENCOR CORP: Delaware Chancery Court Dismissed Rooney Action

KOHN LAW: Dunbar Moves for Certification of Class and Subclass
KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Settlement Approved in "McCarter" Suit
KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Settlement Approved in "Schehura" Suit
LA BELLA: Faces "Flores" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
LE BERNARDIN: Faces "Lucia" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York

LINEAR TECHNOLOGY: "Guerra" Class Suit Dismissed
LOGITECH INC: Faces "Chernus" Suit in New Jersey
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Certification of Classes Sought in "Brown" Suit
LUCIANO SHIPPING: Faces "Nunez" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MAIL TRANSPORT: Elkins Seeks Certification of Employee Class

MARS PETCARE: Pope McGlamry Files Suit Over Prescription Pet Food
MED FOODS: Koller Seeks to Certify Class of Olive Oil Purchasers
MEDPRO GROUP: Certification of Class Sought in "Carrel" Suit
MENTOR GRAPHICS: MOU Reached in Siemens Merger Class Action
MERITOR INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway

MICHIGAN: Court Nixes Proposed Suit Over Drinking Water Crisis
MICROSOFT CORP: 6-Month Oral Hearing to Commence September 2017
MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Remains Dormant
MID-ATLANTIC LUBES: Files Joint Memorandum in "Hoover" Class Suit
NATIONAL RECOVERY: Faces "Khaimov" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

NATUS MEDICAL: March 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
NAVIENT CORP: "Poterek" Suit Alleges Unfair Pre-payment Scheme
NBTY INC: Sweat Must File Bid to Certify by March 17, Court Rules
NITRO FLUIDS: Court Certifies Class of Helpers in "Ochoa" Suit
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Barouk" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y.

OCHSNER HEALTH: "Bergeron" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
OSCAR GOCHEZ: Faces "Gonsalez" Suit in California Superior Court
PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Court Granted Conditional Certification
PROACTIVE PARTNERS: "Armstrong-Head" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT
QED ENVIRONMENTAL: Class Certification Sought in "Johnson" Suit

QUALITY SYSTEMS: Appeal in Securities Class Action Pending
RENT-A-CENTER INC: February 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
RESTORATION HARDWARE: April 3 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
RFI CONSTRUCTION: Luna-Reyes May Amend Complaint, Court Rules
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: April 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

RT MIDWEST: Bernal Moves for Class Certification Under WARN Act
SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Suit Over Disclosure of Farmers Pay
SCHWABE NORTH AMERICA: Class Cert. Bid in "Sonner" Suit Denied
SCION DENTAL: Orrington Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Defending Class Suit in Orange County

STAR GAS: Motion to Dismiss "Donnenfeld" Class Suit Pending
STATE COLLECTION: Status Hearing in "Studebaker" Set for March 30
STS CONSULTING: Class of Field Workers Certified in "Lopez" Suit
T & S WHOLESALE: Faces "Vazquez" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Consolidated Complaint Filed in MDL

TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Court Requires MDL Parties to Mediate
TILLY'S INC: Faces "Minniti" Suit in S.D. Florida
TJX COMPANIES: Faces "David" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
U.S. BANK: Defending Against BlackRock Class Suits
UNITED OF OMAHA: "Sullivan" Sues Over Reduced Insurance Payments

UNITED STATES: "Ali" Files Suit v. Pres. Trump, DHS, USCIS
UNITED STATES: "Clarke" Sues 4th Cir. Ct., North Carolina Judges
VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Shareholder Files Class Action in Minnesota
VERDE ENERGY: "Coleman" Sues Over Illegal Sales Call
VIACOM: High Court Denies Petition for Writ of Certiorari

VISITOR'S CONTROL: Class Certification Denied Without Prejudice
WELLS FARGO: Bids to Dismiss Investor Plaintiffs' Actions Pending
WELLS FARGO: Wins Prelim. Approval of "Slaughter" Suit Settlement
WIGMONT SERVICES: "Salas" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay for Chauffeurs
XANITOS INC: Final Approval Hearing Moved to April 26


                            *********


21ST CENTURY HEALTH: Able Home Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ABLE HOME HEALTH, LLC, on behalf of
plaintiff and the class members, the Plaintiff, v. TWENTY FIRST
CENTURY HEALTH CARE CONSULTANTS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00888 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff
moves the Court to certify a class of:

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act:

   "(a) all persons with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date
   four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C.
   section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of
   defendant Twenty First Century Health Care Consultants, Inc.,
   promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did not
   contain a compliant opt out notice. By "compliant opt out
   notice" is meant one (i) on the first page of the fax (ii)
   that states that the recipient may make a request to the
   sender not to send any future unsolicited advertisements to a
   telephone facsimile machine (iii) that states that failure to
   comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by
   the Federal Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that
   provides instructions on how to submit an opt out request and
   (v) that includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile
   machine number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to
   transmit such a request to the sender that permit a request to
   be made at any time on any day of the week";

For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2:

   "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
   after a date three years prior to the filing of this action,
   (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Twenty First
   Century Health Care Consultants, Inc., promoting its goods or
   services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt
   out notice"; and

For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, and Count IV,
alleging trespass to chattels:

   "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
   after a date five years prior to the filing of this action,
   (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Twenty First
   Century Health Care Consultants, Inc., promoting its goods or
   services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt
   out notice";

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rcU3SdC1

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Dulijaza Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


ACCURA RESTORATION: Faces "Tolalpa" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accura Restoration &
Waterproofing LLC. The case is captioned as Ismael A. Tolalpa
Villa, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Accura Restoration & Waterproofing
LLC, jointly and severally; Accura Restoration Inc., jointly and
severally; Skyline Restoration Services, LLC; and Michael Grant,
jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00509
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2017).

Accura Restoration provides construction and exterior restoration
services to New York City buildings.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


AETNA INC: Judge's Ruling on Merger Prompts Class-Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boris Ladwig at Insider Louisville reports that a judge's
contention that Aetna leaders engaged in deception and coverup
about why they left some Affordable Care Act exchanges has become
the basis for a class-action lawsuit against the insurer and its
leaders.

Judge John D. Bates, of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia, had sided with government officials who said that
Aetna's proposed $34 billion merger with Humana would violate
antitrust law. The insurers had contended that the merged company
would be able to provide consumers with better health care at a
lower price. Aetna CEO Mark Bartolini said that the company would
decide by 11:59 p.m. Feb. 15 whether to appeal the ruling.

In the ruling, Bates wrote that Aetna leaders' contention that the
company reduced its participation in the ACA exchanges for
business reasons conflicted with testimony and internal emails
presented during the trial. Bates said that internal emails and
other evidence acquired by the U.S. Department of Justice indicate
that Aetna left some markets not for business reasons -- but to
lower the risk of the merger being blocked.

Aetna leaders' comments about the rationale for withdrawing from
the exchanges now is the subject of a class-action lawsuit that
asserts that Aetna and some of its executive officers violated the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 "by making false and/or
misleading statements and/or failing to disclose," among other
things, that the company withdrew from profitable health exchanges
"to follow through on its threat of leaving the marketplace once
the DOJ filed suit and to improve its litigation position."

Therefore, law firm Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check asserted, the
executives' statements about Aetna's business, operations, and
prospects "were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis."

The law firm said it filed the suit on behalf of shareholders who
saw the value of their investments in Aetna decline after the
judge's ruling.

Shares of the Hartford, Conn.-based insurer fell 4 percent on the
day of the ruling and the following day.

Aetna did not reply to IL's request for comment, and so far, has
not filed a response to the complaint.

Aetna and some other insurers, including Humana, have said that
they are struggling with higher-than-expected costs incurred by
customers who sign up for insurance through the exchanges, which
are a central part of the health care act. The insurers have said
that the premiums they have collected from those new customers
have not been enough to cover their health care costs.

Aetna officials said that for all of 2016, the company incurred
Obamacare-related losses of $450 million.

Aetna, Humana and others have said that because of mounting losses
related to that business, they are reducing their ACA exposure
this year by limiting the number of plans and geographic areas in
which they're offering their health insurance for individual
consumers.

During the trial, Aetna leaders said that their reduced
participation in health care exchanges in several states
undermined the government's contention that Aetna's proposed
merger with Humana would significantly harm competition.

In its lawsuit to stop the merger, the DOJ identified 17 counties
in which it said that a combination of Aetna and Humana would
materially reduce competition and negatively affect consumers.

According to court documents, a team of Aetna leaders charged with
figuring out how to decrease the company's ACA-related losses
discussed via email what to do with the 17 counties mentioned in
the laws


"Humana remains in all 17 counties," Head of Government Services
Fran Soistman wrote to Executive Vice President Steven Kelmar.

"Then that makes it easy," Kelmar replied, "we need to withdraw
from those."

According to the judge's ruling, Kelmar also told Aetna President
Karen Lynch: "Most of this is a business decision except where DOJ
has been explicit about the exchange markets. There we have no
choice." Lynch replied, "Agree."

Bates wrote in his ruling that the following day, the Aetna team
updated its recommendations on how to reduce the company's ACA
losses by suggesting that Aetna withdraw from the 17 counties
mentioned in the lawsuit, but the recommendation excluded a
business analysis of the exchanges in those locations.

Bates wrote that a series of emails further indicates that "Aetna
executives tried to conceal from discovery in this litigation the
reasoning behind their recommendation to withdraw from the 17
complaint counties."

Jonathan Mayhew, head of Aetna's exchange business, wrote in one
message, "I was told to be careful about putting any of that in
writing. I will have the attorney client privilege ccd by
tomorrow."

"Mayhew acknowledged at trial that he was told to include the
reference to attorney-client privilege so as to prevent these
documents from being produced in this litigation," the judge
wrote. Mayhew "agreed that the purpose of shielding these
documents was to conceal how Aetna was handling the decisions
about its exchange footprint."

"Mayhew acknowledged Aetna executives instructed each other to
call, rather than email, to avoid creating a written trail that
could be revealed in discovery," Bates wrote.

Lynch also testified that the team "never assessed the
profitability of Aetna's individual business in the 17 complaint
counties."

"Had they done so," Bates wrote, "they would have seen that Aetna
chose to withdraw from some profitable states and stay in some
unprofitable ones."


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Rashid" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate
LLC. The case is styled as Syed Rashid, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Allied
Interstate LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00530 (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 30, 2017). The case is

Allied Interstate is a collection agency.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ALTRIA GROUP: 10 International Tobacco-Related Cases Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2017,
that as of January 27, 2017, Philip Morris USA is a named
defendant in 10 health care cost recovery actions in Canada, eight
of which also name Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant. PM USA and
Altria Group, Inc. are also named defendants in seven smoking and
health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces.


ALTRIA GROUP: 9 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial
-------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2017,
that as of January 27, 2017, nine Engle progeny cases are set for
trial through March 31, 2017. There are no individual smoking and
health cases and no "Lights/Ultra Lights" class actions or medical
monitoring cases against PM USA set for trial during this period.
Cases against other companies in the tobacco industry are
scheduled for trial during this period. Trial dates are subject to
change.


ALTRIA GROUP: 105 Engle Progeny Cases Resulted in Verdicts
----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2017,
that as of January 27, 2017, 105 state and federal Engle progeny
cases involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida
Supreme Court's Engle decision as follows:

   * 58 verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs;

   * 44 verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA.

   * Three verdicts in favor of plaintiffs were partially or
entirely reversed on appeal.

Trial Results

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts
have been returned in 61 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights"
and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a
defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were
returned in 41 of the 61 cases. These 41 cases were tried in
Alaska (1), California (7), Florida (10), Louisiana (1),
Massachusetts (2), Mississippi (1), Missouri (4), New Hampshire
(1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1),
Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2).

A motion for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in
Florida and in the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter),
the trial court withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's
motion for reconsideration. In December 2015, the Alaska Supreme
Court reversed the trial court decision and remanded the case with
directions for the trial court to reassess whether to grant a new
trial.

In March 2016, the trial court granted a new trial and PM USA
filed a petition for review of that order with the Alaska Supreme
Court, which the court denied in July 2016. The retrial began in
October 2016.

In November 2016, the court declared a mistrial after the jury
failed to reach a verdict. The plaintiff subsequently moved for a
new trial, which is scheduled to begin October 16, 2017.

Of the 20 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs, 18 have reached final resolution. A
verdict against PM USA in a purported "Lights" class action in
Illinois (Price) was reversed and ultimately resolved in PM USA's
favor.


ALTRIA GROUP: "Donovan" Class Action Concluded
----------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2017,
that the Plaintiff in the "Donovan" Medical Monitoring Class
Action did not appeal the judgment, concluding this litigation.

In medical monitoring actions, plaintiffs have sought to recover
the cost for, or otherwise the implementation of, court-supervised
programs for ongoing medical monitoring purportedly on behalf of a
class of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases have
sought to impose liability under various product-based causes of
action and the creation of a court-supervised program providing
members of the purported class Low Dose CT scanning in order to
identify and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases have
not sought punitive damages, although plaintiffs in Donovan sought
permission from the court to seek to treble any damages awarded,
which the court denied. The defense of any future medical
monitoring cases may be negatively impacted by evolving medical
standards and practice.

In Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs purportedly brought the
action on behalf of certain residents who had neither been
diagnosed with lung cancer nor were under investigation by a
physician for suspected lung cancer. The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts, in answering questions certified to it by the
district court, held that under certain circumstances state law
recognizes a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring
despite the absence of an actual injury. The case was remanded to
federal court for further proceedings. The district court granted
in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying the
class as to plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty and
violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. As a
remedy, plaintiffs proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program
with a cost in excess of $190 million.

Both parties filed various motions, including motions for partial
summary judgment and to exclude certain evidence. The district
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment holding
that e-vapor products may not be deemed an alternative design for
ordinary cigarettes.

In 2016, PM USA ultimately prevailed at trial on the warranty
claim and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act claim with
final judgment entered in favor of PM USA in September 2016.
Plaintiff did not appeal the judgment, concluding this litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: 8 Lights & Ultra Lights Cases Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2017,
that as of January 27, 2017, a total of eight "Lights/Ultra
Lights" Cases are pending in various U.S. state courts.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory
fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been
brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group,
Inc. or its other subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who
purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including
Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and
Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in
these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation,
injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability
under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies
with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment.

                           *     *     *

Altria Group also said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2017,
that as of January 27, 2017, in addition to the federal MDL
proceeding, 20 courts in 21 "Lights" cases have refused to certify
class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior
class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of
Philip Morris USA.


ALTRIA GROUP: Missouri Court Dismissed PM USA's Cross-Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2017,
that in the "Larsen" class action, the court of appeals dismissed
Philip Morris USA's cross-appeal without prejudice upon joint
motion of the parties.

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class
certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during
which potential class members can qualify to become part of the
class. The class period remains 1995-2003. In June 2010, PM USA's
motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request
for punitive damages was denied.

In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to
an element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel
from the findings in the case brought by the Department of
Justice.  The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010.

In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions
challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling
that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on
allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro
Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment
motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October
2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach
a verdict.

In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior ruling
granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more
dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim. In
October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and for
partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim,
which the court denied in June 2015. Upon retrial, in April 2016,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of PM USA.

In May 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which PM
USA opposed in June 2016. In August 2016, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal and PM USA cross-appealed. In November 2016, the court of
appeals dismissed PM USA's cross-appeal without prejudice upon
joint motion of the parties.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Paid $45 Million in "Miner" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2017,
that Philip Morris USA has paid $45 million to "Miner" plaintiff's
escrow agent.

In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion. In
November 2013, the trial court granted class certification. The
certified class includes those individuals who, from November 1,
1971 through June 22, 2010, purchased Marlboro Lights and Marlboro
Ultra Lights for personal consumption in Arkansas. PM USA filed a
notice of appeal of the class certification ruling to the Arkansas
Supreme Court in December 2013.

In February 2015, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court's class certification order. In May 2015, PM USA filed a
motion for partial summary judgment seeking to foreclose any
recovery for cigarette purchases prior to 1999, when a private
right of action was added to the consumer protection statute under
which plaintiffs are suing. The trial court denied the motion in
July 2015.

In June 2016, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for partial
summary judgment to limit any damages claimed by the plaintiffs'
class to purchases made prior to May 2003.

In July 2016, the parties agreed to settle all claims for $45
million.

In the third quarter of 2016, PM USA recorded a provision on its
condensed consolidated balance sheet of $45 million.

In November 2016, the trial court granted final approval of the
settlement, concluding this litigation. In December 2016, PM USA
paid $45 million to plaintiff's escrow agent.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces "Miller" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Medical
Collection Agency. The case is titled as Avraham Miller, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. American Medical Collection Agency, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00533 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2017).

AMCA is a third party independent debt collector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Igor B Litvak, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (646) 796 4905
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Baldwin" Suit Over TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports that cinema chain AMC
has been hit with a class lawsuit claiming the theater company
wrongly added people to marketing lists to send them text messages
promoting upcoming movies and encouraging other purchases.

On Feb. 1, plaintiff Caleb Baldwin, identified in the document
only as a Cook County resident, filed suit in Chicago federal
court, alleging Leawood, Kan.-based AMC violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending the marketing texts
without obtaining express written consent from the recipients.

The lawsuit alleges AMC launched a campaign in 2011 to collect as
many mobile phone numbers from patrons as they could, so as
to begin a text marketing campaign to boost ticket sales and in-
theater purchases.

The lawsuit asserted AMC pitched the program as a way to
distribute coupons and other discounts to its customers.

In his complaint, Baldwin recalled texting a message using AMC's
special texting "short code," to add his number to AMC's texting
list. In response to a prompt from AMC, he also sent a text
message with the letter "Y" to confirm his desire to be in the
promotional program.

However, after receiving no messages from AMC for several years,
Baldwin asserted he had forgotten he had done so.

But in the weeks leading up to the release of the new film, Star
Wars: Rogue One, Baldwin said he suddenly received several text
messages from AMC promoting the movie and inviting him to purchase
full-priced, not discounted, tickets to an upcoming showing of the
film at an AMC theater.

Baldwin said he texted STOP to AMC, but received no confirmation
that the messages would no longer be sent.

While he conceded he voluntarily supplied AMC with his
information, and texted "Y" to confirm, Baldwin's lawsuit asserts
this did not qualify as "written" consent, as required under the
TCPA law.

Plaintiffs are asking the judge to award statutory damages of $500
per violation, plus other damages, the complaint said.

Baldwin is represented in the action by attorneys with the firm of
Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, of Chicago.

AMC is the largest movie theater chain in the world, operating 661
theaters in the U.S. The company directly operates cinemas in 33
Illinois communities, including six in Chicago, according to the
company's website.


APCAR COLLEGE: Meyer Seeks to Certify Class of Reserve Residents
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled BRITTANY MEYER, ALYSSA
JOHNSON, HEIDI GROENENBOOM, ERICA GROTH, and BRITTANY OLSON v.
APCAR College Park, LLC and Asset Campus Housing, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00142-LTS (N.D. Ia.), moves for an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying the Class and Subclass defined
       as:

       Class:

       All persons who have resided at The Reserve from July 8,
       2014 through the date of the Order preliminarily approving
       class certification and settlement and all persons who
       have entered into a written lease with Defendants from
       July 8, 2014 through the date of the Order preliminarily
       approving class certification and settlement;

       Subclass:

       All Class Members who were tenants of The Reserve from
       approximately December 1, 2014 to July 31, 2015, the
       period during which the Reserve was undergoing
       renovations.

   (2) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement;

   (3) appointing Plaintiffs as Representative Plaintiffs;


   (4) appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel;

   (5) approving the form and manner of notice to Class Members;
       and

   (6) scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing.

The matter was brought as a proposed class action by the
Plaintiffs against their landlords Asset Campus Housing, Inc.,
seeking various remedies under Iowa Code Chapter 562A, and the
Uniform Residential Landlord Tenant Act.

On December 1, 2016, the parties engaged in a day-long mediation
of the case, and have entered into a Settlement Agreement, subject
to approval of the Court, which is detailed in the Stipulation and
Settlement Agreement, attached to the Motion as Exhibit A and in
the Plaintiffs' brief.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs request that
the Court conditionally certify the matter as a class action for
the purpose of effecting the settlement.  The Defendants do not
object to conditional certification of the matter as a class
action for the purpose of effecting the settlement.

The proposed settlement provides that the Defendants and their
insurer will jointly pay $750,000 to the proposed Class for the
payment of all Class and SubClass claims, attorneys' fees and
expenses and administration expenses.  After the payment of fees
and expenses, Representative Plaintiffs' enhancement awards and
administrative expenses, the parties believe that approximately
$455,000 ("Net Settlement Proceeds") will remain to be distributed
to the Class.

The Parties agree that Representatives Brittany Meyer, Alyssa
Johnson, Heidi Groenenboom, Erica Groth and Brittany Olson should
be appointed as Representative Plaintiffs.  The Parties have also
agreed to a notice procedure, detailed in Plaintiffs' brief in
support of the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ann E. Brown, Esq.
          ANN BROWN LEGAL PC
          600 3rd St. SE, Suite 302
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
          Telephone: (319) 826-2250
          Facsimile: (319) 826-2252
          E-mail: ann@annbrownlegal.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Preston, Esq.
          Brad J. Brady, Esq.
          BRADY PRESTON GRONLUND PC
          2735 1st Avenue SE
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
          Telephone: (319) 866-9277
          Facsimile: (319) 866-9280
          E-mail: MPreston@BradyPrestonGronlund.com
                  BBrady@BradyPrestonGronlund.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Schmidt, Esq.
          NAZETTE, MARNER, NATHANSON & SHEA, LLP
          615 Second Street SW
          P.O. Box 74210
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52407-4250
          Telephone: (319) 366-1000
          Facsimile: (319) 364-1116
          E-mail: jschmidt@nazettelaw.com

Defendants APCAR College Park, LLC and Asset Campus Housing, Inc.,
are represented by:

          Jesse Linebaugh, Esq.
          Angela Morales, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor
          Des Moines, IA 50309-8011
          Telephone: (515) 447-4706
          Facsimile: (515) 248-9010
          E-mail: jesse.linebaugh@faegrebd.com
                  angela.morales@faegrebd.com


APPLE INC: Forced Users to Ugrade Software, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------
Chance Miller at 9 to 5 Mac reports that Apple has been hit with
another class action lawsuit in California. This one alleges that
the company forced users to upgrade to iOS 7 by essentially
breaking FaceTime in iOS 6. The move to render FaceTime useless in
iOS 6, according to the lawsuit, was primarily driven by Apple
wanting to avoid paying increasingly high data costs to Akamai.

The suit alleges, however, that the forced upgrade to use FaceTime
rendered older devices like iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S unusable.

Much of the basis for this lawsuit was made public in Apple's
patent battle with VirnetX.

When FaceTime originally launched, there were two technologies
used for connecting iPhones together. The first used a peer-to-
peer standard to directly transfer audio and video between users.
The other used a "relay method," relying on third-party servers
from Akami to transfer the data between users. The latter method
accounted for a report 5 percent to 10 percent of FaceTime calls
at first.

Come 2012, however, Apple was found guilty of violating patents
owned by VirnetX with its peer-to-peer tech, thus forcing the
company to switch to the relay method for all FaceTime calls and
data.

Because of this, Apple started to incur millions of dollars in
monthly data fees to Akami. According to information made public
in Apple's patent retrial with VirnetX last year, the company
incurred $50 million in fees between April 2013 and September
2013, coming out to around $8.3 million per month.

With that much leaving Apple's pockets per month, executives
started to investigate ways to reduce the cost of FaceTime.
Today's lawsuit, for instance, points to an internal email with
the subject line "Ways to Reduce Relay Usage."

After paying the millions of dollars in data fees for a year,
Apple saw a way to move away from the relay technology with
FaceTime and use a peer-to-peer standard that didn't infringe on
VirnetX patents. With iOS 7, FaceTime made the switch.

The problem, however, was that some customers continued to remain
on iOS 6, forcing Apple to continue to pay data fees to Akamai.
Today's lawsuit, however, alleges that Apple realized it could
force people to either upgrade to iOS 7 or break FaceTime on iOS 6
by causing an important digital certificate to expire earlier.
After doing that, Apple blamed the newfound iOS 6 FaceTime issues
on a bug, explaining the "problem" in a security post on its
support site:

If you started to have issues making or receiving FaceTime calls
after April 16, 2014, your device or your friend's device may have
encountered a bug resulting from a device certificate that expired
on that date. Updating both devices to the latest software will
resolve this issue.

Adding more fuel to this fire, today's lawsuit cites an email
chain between engineers.

"Hey, guys. I'm looking at the Akamai contract for next year. I
understand we did something in April around iOS 6 to reduce relay
utilization," an Apple engineer manager stated.

Another engineer replied, "It was a big user of relay bandwidth.
We broke iOS 6, and the only way to get FaceTime working again is
to upgrade to iOS 7."

The lawsuit also alleges that in pushing users to iOS 7, the
company rendered older devices such as the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S
useless:

For iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S users, for example, the coerced move to
iOS 7 subjected their devices to slowness, system crashes, erratic
behavior and/or the elimination of their ability to use critical
functions on their phone.

As succinctly stated in one of the media reports that discussed
these widespread functionality problems, "the older handsets
buckle under the weight of the new software." Thus, for millions
of Apple's customers, a move to iOS 7 would significantly harm the
functionality of their device.

All in all, the lawsuit alleges that Apple violated the California
unfair competition law and is liable for trespass to chattels,
which means that Apple is responsible for interfering with
another's possessions.

As for what will come of this lawsuit/conspiracy theory remains to
be seen.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Federal Court Stay Remains in Effect
------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the stay granted by the
federal court remains in effect.

The Company said, "On May 21, 2015, a class action petition was
filed by St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. in the State Circuit Court
of St. Louis County, Missouri, against athenahealth. The petition
alleges we violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Following service, we removed the case to federal court in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Case No. 4:15-cv-01215."

"On our motion, the federal court initially stayed further
proceedings (pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in
Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, No. 14-857), but lifted that stay on
February 3, 2016. We filed our answer in the case on March 8,
2016. Subsequently, on March 14, 2016, we moved for an additional
stay pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC, No. 14-1234,
regarding the validity of a regulation promulgated by the Federal
Communications Commission relating to the claims asserted in the
petition. On May 16, 2016, the federal court granted the motion
for a further stay, which remains in effect."

athenahealth partners with hospital and ambulatory clients to
drive clinical and financial results.  athenahealth offers
network-enabled medical record, revenue cycle, patient engagement,
care coordination, and population health services, as well as
Epocrates(R) and other point-of-care mobile applications.


ATLANTIC CITY, NJ: International Association Suit Moved to D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE
FIGHTERS; AFL-CIO LOCAL 198; and WILLIAM DILORENZO, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY
OF ATLANTIC CITY NEW JERSEY; CHARLES RICHMAN, Commissioner of New
Jersey Department of Community Services, sued in his official
capacity; TIMOTHY CUNNINGHAM, Director of New Jersey Department of
Community Services, Division of Local Government Services, sued in
his official capacity; and JEFFREY CHIESA, Designee of New Jersey
Department of Community Services, Division of Local Government
Services, sued in his official capacity, Case No. ATL L 208 17,
was removed from the Superior Court Of Atlantic County, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00665-RMB-JS to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Renee Marie Bumb.

Atlantic City is a resort city on New Jersey's Atlantic coast
that's known for its many casinos, wide beaches and iconic
Boardwalk. Established in the 1800s as a health resort, today the
city is dotted with glitzy high-rise hotels and nightclubs. In
addition to gambling at slot machines and table games, the casinos
offer spa treatments, performances by famous comedy and music
acts, and high-end shopping.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Bukosky, Esq.
          LOCCKE & CORREIA, PA
          24 Salem Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 468 0880
          E-mail: mbukosky@northeastlaborlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ronald Lawrence Israel
          CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC
          THE OFFICES AT CRYSTAL LAKE
          One Boland Drive
          West Orange, NJ 07052
          Telephone: (973) 530 2045
          Facsimile: (973) 530-2245
          E-mail: risrael@csglaw.com


AUDIOEYE INC: Court to Hold Final Settlement Hearing on May 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
AudioEye, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the Court will hold
a Final Settlement Hearing on May 8, 2017.

In April 2015, two shareholder class action lawsuits were filed
against AudioEye, Inc. and former officers Nathaniel Bradley and
Edward O'Donnell in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona. A consolidated amended complaint was filed under the
caption In re AudioEye, Inc. Sec. Litigation.

On July 25, 2016, in connection with a voluntary mediation, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
consolidated actions subject to definitive documentation,
shareholder notice, and court approval.  A written Stipulation of
Settlement was executed and filed with the Court in December 2016.

On January 23, 2017, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement pursuant to the terms set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement, provisionally certified a settlement class of
shareholders, and directed plaintiffs' counsel to provide notice
to that class.

The Court will hold a Final Settlement Hearing May 8, 2017 to
consider any objections to the Settlement that might be raised by
settlement class members, to consider plaintiffs' counsel's
application for an award of fees and costs, and to finally
determine whether the Order and Final Judgment as provided under
the Stipulation of Settlement should be entered, dismissing the
case with prejudice.


BAY AREA TOLL: Bid to Dismiss "Kelly" Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE KELLY, an individual, on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated, v. BAY AREA TOLL AUTHORITY; GOLDEN
GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT; XEROX STATE AND
LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC., and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-
cv-06837-RS (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Richard Seeborg granted
the parties' Joint Stipulation regarding the Briefing Schedule on
the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

The Defendants' replies in support of their Motions shall be filed
on or before February 16, 2017, following the Plaintiff's schedule
to file the opposition to the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss last
February 3, 2017.

A copy of the Court's Order dated January 25, 2017 is available at
https://goo.gl/mdgoj7 from Leagle.com.

Michelle Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Blake Joseph Lindemann -
- Blake@lawbl.com -- Lindemann Law Firm, APC.

Michelle Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Daren M. Schlecter --
daren@schlecterlaw.com -- Lindemann Law Firm, APC & Po Satia Chhim
-- po@chhimlaw.com -- Lindemann Law Firm, APC.

Bay Area Toll Authority, et al., Defendants, represented by
Samantha D. Wolff -- swolff@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett
LLP & Alexandra V. Atencio -- aatencio@hansonbridgett.com --
Hanson Bridgett LLP.

Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Rebecca Kim Kimura -- rkimura@lkclaw.com -- Lafayette & Kumagai
LLP.


BECTON DICKINSON: Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Drops Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Authority, trading as Southeast Georgia
Health System, and Southeast Georgia Health System, Inc., have
dismissed their appeal in a class action lawsuit, Becton,
Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2016.

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 appealed that decision to the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs thereafter voluntarily
dismissed their appeal, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the
case on November 21, 2016.

Becton, Dickinson and Company ("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. The Company's
organizational structure is based upon two principal business
segments, BD Medical ("Medical") and BD Life Sciences ("Life
Sciences").


BIG CITY YONKERS: Faces "Santos" Suit Over FLSA, NY Labor Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
GLEISON SANTOS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, v. BIG CITY YONKERS, INC., 450 CONCORD AVENUE
CORP., QPBC INC., KKLDS, INC., 20-15 ATLANTIC CORP., GLENWOOD
AUTOPARTS CORP., D A L HOLDING CO., INC., ALL PARTS INC.,
AUTOSTAR AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC., WILLIAMSBURG AUTOMOTIVE
REALTY, LLC, RYLE REALTY CORP., LINDEN BC, INC., BIG CITY
ENGLEWOOD, INC. and KENNETH MAURER, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00329-MKB-PK (E.D.N.Y., January 20, 2017), alleges, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, that he and others similarly
situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid
overtime due to time-shaving, (2) liquidated damages and (3)
attorneys' fees and costs.  Plaintiff further alleges that,
pursuant to New York Labor Law, he and others similarly situated
are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime due
to time-shaving, (2) statutory penalties, (3) liquidated damages
pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage
Theft Prevention Act, and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants operate an auto parts warehouse business as a common
enterprise under the company "Big City Automotive Warehouses."
The case was filed on behalf of all dispatchers employed by
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BISTRO 1285: Faces "Martinez" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bistro 1285 Inc. The
case is styled as Julio Cesar Irineo Martinez and Jose Luis
Aurelio Pinzon, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Bistro 1285 Inc., doing business as
Bistro Caterers; 1285 Bakery Inc., doing business as Bistro
Caterers; Bistro 369 Food Corp., doing business as Bistro
Caterers; Nicholas Castigliano; George Jamison; and Leon Moore,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00748 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2017).

The Defendants are engaged in the catering service industry.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


BOFI HOLDING: Seeks to Dismiss Second Amended Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BofI Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the Company and
other defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint in the case, In re BofI Holding, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,
and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Golden Case").

On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second
putative class action lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc.,
et al, and also brought in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California (the "Hazan Case").

On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were
consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the "Class Action"), and the
Houston Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead
plaintiff. The Class Action complaint was amended by a certain
Consolidated Amended Class Complaint filed on April 11, 2016. The
Class Action plaintiff seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
Court.

The complaints filed in the Golden Case and the Hazan Case both
allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by failing to disclose the wrongful conduct that is
alleged in a complaint that was filed in a wrongful termination of
employment lawsuit (the "Employment Matter"), and that as a result
the Company's statements regarding its internal controls, as well
as portions of its financial statements, were false and
misleading.

The Company and the other named defendants dispute the allegations
of wrongdoing advanced by the plaintiffs in the Class Action and
in the Employment Matter, as well as those plaintiffs' statement
of the underlying factual circumstances, and are vigorously
defending both cases.

In addition to the Class Action, two separate shareholder
derivative actions were filed in December, 2015, purportedly on
behalf of the Company. The first derivative action, Calcaterra v.
Garrabrants, et al, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on December 3, 2015. The
second derivative action, Dow v. Micheletti, et al, was filed in
the San Diego County Superior Court on December 16, 2015. A third
derivative action, DeYoung v. Garrabrants, et al, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on January 22, 2016, a fourth derivative action, Yong
v. Garrabrants, et al, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on January 29, 2016,
and a fifth derivative action, Laborers Pension Trust Fund of
Northern Nevada v. Allrich et al, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on February
2, 2016.

Each of these five derivative actions names the Company as a
nominal defendant, and certain of its officers and directors as
defendants. Each complaint sets forth allegations of breaches of
fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, and
unjust enrichment against the defendant officers and directors.
The plaintiffs in these derivative actions seek damages in
unspecified amounts on the Company's behalf from the officer and
director defendants, certain corporate governance actions, and an
award of their costs and attorney's fees.

On June 9, 2016, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California ordered the four above-referenced cases
pending before it to be consolidated, appointed lead counsel in
the consolidated action, and ordered the parties to meet and
confer regarding a schedule for the filing of a consolidated
complaint and defendants' response to the complaint. Pursuant to
the June 9, 2016 order, counsel have met and conferred regarding
proposals for (a) the time for plaintiffs to file a consolidated
complaint or provide notice of plaintiffs' intent to rely upon the
original Complaint in Case No. 3:15-cv-02722-GPC-KSC (the
"operative complaint"); (b) the time for defendants to respond to
the operative complaint; and (c) a schedule for briefing any
motion to dismiss that may be filed by a defendant. A stipulation
setting forth the agreed litigation schedule has been submitted to
the Court.

The fifth derivative action, which is pending before the San Diego
County Superior Court, has been stayed by agreement of the
parties.

On September 27, 2016, the Court dismissed the Class Action, with
leave to amend, as to defendants Andrew Micheletti, Paul Grinberg,
Nicholas Mosich and James Argalas. The Court denied the Motion to
Dismiss with respect to the Company and Gregory Garrabrants. The
Company and the other defendants dispute the allegations of
wrongdoing and are vigorously defending these purported derivative
actions.

On November 25, 2016, the putative class action plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint, which includes the
previously dismissed defendants. On December 23, 2016, the Company
and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss such Second Amended
Class Action Complaint.

The Company is the holding company for BofI Federal Bank (the
"Bank"), a diversified financial services company with
approximately $8.2 billion in assets that provides consumer and
business banking products through its branchless, low-cost
distribution channels and affinity partners.


BOOT BARN: Defending Employee Class Suits in Fresno County
----------------------------------------------------------
Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. is defending against a class action
lawsuit by employees, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1,
2017, for the quarterly period ended December 24, 2016.

On April 28, 2016, two employees, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated employees, filed a wage-and-hour class
action, which includes claims for penalties under California's
Private Attorney General Act, in the Fresno County Superior Court,
Case No. 16 CE CG 01330, alleging violations of California's wage
and hour, overtime, meal break and statement of wages rules and
regulations among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified
amount of damages and penalties.

The Company intends to defend this claim vigorously. At present,
the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss that may arise
from this matter, but has recorded as of December 24, 2016 an
amount for the estimated probable loss, which is not material to
the condensed consolidated financial statements. Depending on the
actual outcome of pending litigation, charges in excess of such
recorded amount could be recorded in the future, which may have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations or liquidity.

The Company operates specialty retail stores that sell western and
work boots and related apparel and accessories. The Company
operates retail locations throughout the U.S. and sells its
merchandise via the internet.


BRIGHT HOUSE: Faces "Memmer" Suit in Florida Circuit Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bright House
Networks LLC. The case is titled as MEMMER, SHARON, INDIVIDUALLY
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS LLC,
DOING BUSINESS AS: BRIGHT HOUSE SPECTRUM C/O CORPORATION SERVICE
COMPANY REG AGENT TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301; and CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING LLC ALSO KNOWN AS CHARTER COMMUNICATION A
FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, C/O SECRETARY OF STATE
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32314, the Defendants, Case No. 17-000683-CI (Fla.
Cir. Ct., Jan. 31, 2017).

Bright House owns and operates cable systems that provide video,
high-speed data, home security, and automation and voice services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian R Leavengood, Esq.
          LEAVEN LAW
          3900 First Street North, Suite 100,
          St. Petersburg, FL 33703
          Telephone: (727) 346 6050
          Facsimile: (855) 532 8365
          Website: http://www.leavenlaw.com


BROADCOM CORP: Settled Stockholder Class-Action Over Avago Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Hutton at Northern California Record reports semiconductor
maker Broadcom Corp. has settled a stockholder class-action
lawsuit that originated after the company merged with Avago in
2015.

Joshua S. Devore, Esq. -- jdevore@cohenmilstein.com -- a partner
in the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers and
Toll said the settlement provides for a series of representations
to be made by Broadcom Limited and filed with the SEC.

"We will ask that the court award attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses that will be paid by defendants," Devore
told the Northern California Record.

A hearing is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on Feb. 27 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California before Judge
James Selna.

"At that time, the court will approve the settlement, and rule on
a request for legal fees and expenses," Devore said. "It consists
of two pieces: supplemental disclosures that have already been
made and a second set of representations that the new company will
make."

Devore noted that the case has been winding its way through court
since the merger in 2015.  On Nov. 16, 2015, the court appointed
the Iron Workers Fund and Oklahoma Firefighters as lead plaintiffs
in the action.

Terms of the merger agreement called for Avago to pay $37 billion
for all of Broadcom's common stock.

"Under the merger agreement, shareholders could elect to receive
either a combination of cash and ordinary shares in the newly
formed company or a restricted equity security," Devore said. "The
equity security would not be transferable or saleable for a period
of one to two years after closing."

Devore noted that the cash and ordinary share consideration is
subject to proration such that shareholders, regardless of what
they elect, will likely receive approximately 54 percent cash and
46 percent ordinary shares.

In 2016, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll was appointed lead
counsel by Selna on behalf of the Iron Workers Mid-America Pension
Plan and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, and
the proposed class of Broadcom shareholders who were challenging
the merger.

"The class-action complaint alleged that the joint proxy statement
issued by the merging companies was false and misleading, and
omitted material information," Devore said. "It also noted that
Broadcom's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders."

Some board members were alleged to have aided in the breach,
according to filings with the court.

Broadcom's stock transfer agent, Computershare Shareholder
Services, provided Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC (KCC) with a
list of 828 unique names and addresses of record holders during
the class period.

According to Devore, KCC was appointed by the court to serve as
settlement administrator in connection with the proposed
settlement.

"In December, KCC mailed copies of the postcard summary notice to
each of the 828 record holders," Devore noted.

In total, the notice was initially sent to 1,917 potential class
members.

As of Jan. 20, 2017, Devote noted that KCC has received 109,793
names and addresses of potential class members (after duplicate
mailing records were removed) from individuals, brokers, dealers,
banks and other nominees requesting notices to be mailed to such
persons.

Also, KCC has received requests from brokers and other nominees
for 113,017 postcard summary notices to be sent to such brokers
and nominees so that they could forward them to their customers.
All such requests were promptly fulfilled.

Devore noted that as of Jan. 20, KCC has mailed 224,823 postcard
summary notices. KCC has not received any options from the
settlement class.

Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll was assisted in the case by Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, a national law firm with
offices in San Diego, New York and Chicago; WeissLaw, a firm with
offices in New York and California; and Westerman Law Corp., based
in Los Angeles.


C & H SUGAR: Faces "Strong" Suit in Northern Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C & H Sugar Company,
Inc. The case is entitled as Ray Strong, on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. C & H Sugar
Company, Inc., and American Sugar Refining, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00480 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2017).

C&H Sugar Company produces and sells cane sugar and molasses in
the United States.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


C.R. ENGLAND: Court Certifies Truck Drivers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schremmer at Land Line Mag reports a U.S. District Court
judge in Utah granted certification to a nationwide class of truck
drivers who allege fraud and other statutory claims against C.R.
England.

Judge Robert J. Shelby approved the class action lawsuit on Jan.
31 paving the way for a nationwide class that could exceed 14,708
drivers. Horizon Truck Sales and Leasing, which is affiliated with
C.R. England, is also named in the complaint. The certified class
claims are for violations of the Utah Business Opportunity
Disclosure Act, the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act and the Utah
Truth in Advertising Act, as well as common law claims for fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of
fiduciary duty for all independent contractor lease operators.

Plaintiffs Charles Roberts and Kenneth McKay, who drove for C.R.
England as independent contractors and leased trucks from Horizon
in 2009, allege that the defendants developed a fraudulent plan to
induce thousands of people to enroll in C.R. England's driver
training schools by promising students the choice of eventual
employment as a company driver or the ability to earn a desirable
income driving as an independent contractor.

However, the plaintiffs claim that weren't many company driver
positions available, and students in the driver training schools
were subjected to a "misinformation campaign" to convince them to
lease trucks from the defendants and become independent contractor
drivers for C.R. England.

The complaint alleges that as many as thousands of students were
persuaded to invest substantial sums of money to lease trucks from
the defendants. The plaintiffs claim that many of these drivers
were left "debt-ridden."

"Effectively what's been alleged is that C.R. England and Horizon
were operating in a way to engineer having drivers choose the
independent contractor lease option," said Ben Glicksman, an
attorney for the plaintiffs. "What we contend and allege is that
the methods they used were unfair, because they were providing
representations that were no longer or were never accurate
depictions of what those drivers would make."

Horizon and C.R. England, which is a nationwide trucking company
headquartered in West Valley City, Utah, responded by calling the
allegations "fiction," and saying that "myriad individualized
issues make this case unsuitable for class certification."

The parties differ in their views of Horizon's relationship to
C.R. England. The defendants say the corporations are separate but
affiliated entities, while the plaintiffs contend that Horizon is
part of C.R. England's "empire."

Judge Shelby certified a nationwide class of C.R. England drivers
who meet all of the following criteria:

   -- Signed the vehicle leasing agreement with Horizon;

   -- Signed the independent contractor operating agreement with
C.R. England;

   -- Did the above during the applicable statute of limitations
period; and

   -- Drove at least one day as an independent contractor lease
operator for C.R. England.

The judge directed the plaintiffs to propose a plan within 30 days
on how to notify the class members.


CALIBER HOME: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for May 31
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REBECCA ASHACK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.,
Defendant, No. 1:15-cv-01069-JMS-DML (S.D. Ind.), Chief District
Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson scheduled the Final Settlement
Approval Hearing on May 31, 2017, following the initial approval
of the parties' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement
Class.

For purposes of settlement, the Settlement Class is preliminarily
certified as all persons or entities in the United States who, on
or after July 9, 2011 to the date the action is finally approved,
received a call to their cellular telephone line through the use
of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice made by or on behalf of Defendant.

The Court appointed the attorneys at Terrell Marshall Law Group
PLLC, The Frasher Law Firm, P.C., and Saeed & Little, LLP as Class
Counsels. Moreover, the Court appointed Kurtzman Carson
Consultants as the Claims Administrator.

The Court further ordered a timeline through the Final Approval
Hearing in which:

     (1) the deadline to make the Settlement Website available
will be scheduled seven days after the entry of the Order;

     (2) the deadline to mail notice will be scheduled 30 days
after the entry of the Order;

     (3) the deadline for the Class Counsel to file fee petition
and request for service awards will be scheduled 60 days after
entry of the Order;

     (4) the deadline for the Settlement Class Members to submit
claims, exclusion requests, and objections will be scheduled 90
days after entry of the Order;

     (5) the deadline to file responses to objections will be
scheduled 14 days before the Final Approval; and

     (6) the hearing motion for final approval will be at the
court's convenience, but no earlier Final Approval Hearing than
120 days after entry of the order.

A copy of the Court's Order dated January 24, 2017 is available at
https://goo.gl/kCU496 from Leagle.com.

REBECCA ASHACK, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
pro hac vice.

REBECCA ASHACK, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff Neuenschwander --
jeff@sllawfirm.com -- SAEED & LITTLE LLP, Jennifer Rust Murray --
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
pro hac vice, Mary B. Reiten -- mreiten@terrellmarshall.com --
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Ryan R. Frasher --
rfrasher@frasherlaw.com -- RYAN FRASHER P.C. & Syed Ali Saeed --
ali@sllawfirm.com -- SAEED & LITTLE LLP.

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., Defendant, represented by David T.
Biderman -- DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP, pro hac
vice, Donna Strain -- DStrain@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP,
pro hac vice, Edward M. Smid -- edward.smid@btlaw.com -- BARNES &
THORNBURG LLP, Joshua Reiten, PERKINS COIE LLP, pro hac vice &
Michael H. Gottschlich -- michael.gottschlich@btlaw.com -- BARNES
& THORNBURG LLP.


CANADA: Offers to Negotiate Settlement for '60s Scoop Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Galloway at The Globe and Mail reports the federal
government is offering to negotiate a settlement in a class-action
lawsuit known as the '60s Scoop case, in which indigenous people
say they lost their cultural identity when they were removed as
children from their homes on reserves to be placed with non-
aboriginal families.

The government announced that it is willing to entertain talks to
end the long-running court dispute after federal lawyers informed
a justice of Ontario's Superior Court that they would not cross-
examine two aging First Nations elders who were preparing to
testify, and that they had no more evidence to tender.

"I am very proud to say that we are adversaries no more and that
negotiation rather than litigation is our government's preferred
route to settle these differences and to right historical wrongs,"
Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett told the House of
Commons. "That's why our government is launching negotiations
towards a national resolution to the '60s Scoop litigation."

The '60s Scoop is a "dark and painful chapter in our history," Dr.
Bennett said. "Resolving these cases is an important step in our
journey of reconciliation with indigenous peoples."

The $1.3-billion suit seeks redress for what the plaintiffs say
was the government's failure to ensure that, after being taken
from their communities by child-welfare authorities, the children
were allowed to maintain their traditions and customs and to
obtain the benefits that flow to aboriginal people, such as free
postsecondary tuition.

Similar suits have been launched in other provinces where the
plaintiffs are waiting for the outcome of the Ontario case. The
government said it hoped to reach settlements in all of the legal
actions.

The Ontario case was launched in 2009 on behalf of Marcia Brown
Martel, now the Chief of the Beaverhouse First Nation, who was
taken from her community north of North Bay in 1967 when she was
four years old and, after years in foster care, was adopted by a
white family.

Her lawyers estimate there are about 16,000 other indigenous
people in the province who were removed from their homes in
similar fashion, under a federal-provincial agreement, between
1965 and 1984.

After seven years of delays, mostly as a result of appeals by
Ottawa, the court hearings began in August.

The government's move to stop litigation effectively brought the
testimony to an end, and Justice Edward Belobaba was expected to
announce a date for his ruling.

The legal team for Ms. Brown and the other class-action claimants
said they found the timing of the government's overture curious
and somewhat disconcerting.

While the government is talking about negotiating a settlement, it
is pressing ahead with its defence in the case, said Jeffery
Wilson, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs.

If there is to be a settlement, the government, which has been
fighting a legal battle for eight years, must state "that Canada
does, and always did, have a duty to protect the cultural identity
of indigenous children," Mr. Wilson said later in a statement. "If
this is what the minister intends by her statement, we look
forward to being part of the reconciliation process."

CHARLES SUAREZ: Asks Court to Exclude Engineer's Testimony
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen at Madison St.Clair Record reports that St.
Clair County Treasurer Charles Suarez and several tax buyers
accused of participating in a bid-rigging conspiracy seek to
exclude an engineer's testimony, arguing that his opinion is not
based on "reliable principles or methods."

Joe Vassen, John Vassen and V.I. Inc. filed a motion to exclude
the opinions of Dr. Carl Peters on Dec. 23 through attorney Paul
T. Slocomb of Hoffman & Slocomb LLC in St. Louis.

Peters has a PhD in engineering and claims he is qualified in the
field of statistics, specifically descriptive and inferential
statistics.

Descriptive statistics deals with the presentation and collection
of data. Inferential statistics involves drawing the right
conclusions from the statistical analysis that has been performed
using descriptive statistics, the motion states.

The defendants allege Peters admits that he has only performed a
descriptive statistical analysis of the case and that he never
personally saw any type of delinquent real estate tax auction when
comparing the information to neighboring Madison County.

"Dr. Peters admits that he assumed that the guilty pleas of
several of the Tax Buyers and the Treasurer proved that there was,
in fact, bid rigging in Madison County; however, Dr. Peters admits
that he did not consider the fact that no one has been charged or
even investigated as it relates to the St. Clair County Tax
Sales," the motion states.

The defendants also allege Peters did not consider individual tax
buyer's bidding patterns or habits, as well as other unique
characteristics for each tax purchase.

The defendants seek to have Peters' opinions excluded, which they
say "is not based on sufficient facts or data."

"His testimony is not the product of reliable principles and
methods. Dr. Peters has not reliably applied any principles and
methods to the facts of the case," the motion states.

The defendants say Peters did not employ "technique or theory."

"Instead, Dr. Peters' opinion is simply a subjective, conclusory
approach that cannot reasonably be assessed for reliability. No
regression analysis or other statistical analysis was used. Dr.
Peters also has failed to adequately account for obvious
alternative explanations," the motion states.

Defendants Barrett Rochman, Kenneth Rochman, Sabre Group LLC and
SI Securities filed a joinder of the motion to exclude on Jan. 11
through attorneys Andrew Kasnetz, Timothy Sansone and Natalie
Kussart of Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard in St. Louis.

Defendants Dennis Ballinger Sr., Dennis Ballinger Jr., Empire Tax
Corp. and Vista Securities Inc. also filed a joinder of the motion
to exclude on Jan. 12 through attorney Daniel Delaney of Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP in Chicago.

Defendants St. Clair County and Charles Suarez filed a joinder of
the motion to exclude on Jan. 13 through attorney Garrett Hoerner
of Becker Hoerner Thompson & Ysursa in Belleville.

Plaintiffs Kevin and Kathleen Dvorak filed a memorandum of law in
opposition to the defendants' motion to exclude Peters on Jan. 13.

They argue that Peters formed his opinions based on the available
data on tax sales from St. Clair County, Madison County and 30
other Illinois counties.

"No issues have been raised concerning the reliability of the
underlying data used by Dr. Peters," the opposition states.

Further, they allege Peters chose his method, because "this is not
a simply average bid."

The plaintiffs argue that Peters' opinions are "relevant and
reliable," and contain no errors in his calculations or analysis.

"Although the gross disparities in penalty bid rates during the
same time period between St. Clair County and other Illinois
counties (other than the admittedly anti-competitive Madison tax
sales) is a comparison Defendants surly want to avoid, it is a
relevant one," the opposition states.

The plaintiffs add that because Peters looked at 30 other Illinois
counties for the same time period, the higher rate increases in
St. Clair County are not "anomalies."

According to the complaint, two couples sued Suarez and tax buyers
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
on Oct. 17, 2014, alleging a conspiracy similar to one that sent
former Madison County treasurer Fred Bathon to prison.

John Bloyer Jr., Adrianne Bloyer, and the Dvoraks, all of
O'Fallon, claim the alleged conspirators artificially inflated
interest rates at tax sales in 2007 and 2008. They claim Suarez
illegally rigged bids at sales of delinquent taxes to enrich
Democratic campaign contributors.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 3:14-cv-01119-SMY-RJD


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Still Defends Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Commvault Systems, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend the case, In re Commvault Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

On September 10, 2014, a purported class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer. The case is captioned In re Commvault
Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 3:14-cv-
05628-MAS-LHG). The suit alleges that the Company made materially
false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material
facts, regarding the Company's financial results, business,
operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The suit asserts claims covering an alleged class
period from May 7, 2013 through April 24, 2014. It is purportedly
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during that period, and seeks compensatory damages, costs and
expenses, as well as equitable or other relief. Lead plaintiff,
the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, was appointed on January
12, 2015, and on March 18, 2015, an amended complaint was filed by
the plaintiffs.

On December 17, 2015, the defendant's motion to dismiss the case
was granted and the case dismissed; however, the plaintiffs were
permitted to re-file their claim, which they did on February 5,
2016.  Defendants filed another motion to dismiss on April 5,
2016, which was denied by the court on September 30, 2016.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. The
Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of
the litigation will have a material impact on its results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows. As of December 31,
2016, the Company has not recorded an accrual for this matter as
it has concluded the probability of a loss is remote.

Commvault Systems, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("Commvault" or the
"Company") is a leading provider of data and information
management software applications and related services. The Company
develops, markets and sells a suite of software applications and
services, primarily in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia,
that provides its customers with data protection solutions
supporting all major operating systems, applications, and
databases on virtual and physical servers, NAS shares, cloud-based
infrastructures, and mobile devices; management through a single
console; multiple protection methods including backup and archive,
snapshot management, replication, and content indexing for
eDiscovery; efficient storage management using deduplication for
disk, tape and cloud; integration with the industry's top storage
arrays; complete virtual infrastructure management supporting
multiple hypervisors; security capabilities to limit access to
critical data; policy based data management; and an end-user
experience that allows them to protect, find and recover their own
data using common tools such as web browsers, Microsoft Outlook
and File Explorer. The Company also provides its customers with a
broad range of professional and customer support services.


CROWN RESORTS: Law Firm Urges Shareholders to Launch Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian reports that Crown Resorts should have known its
focus on drawing Chinese high rollers to its casinos was a hugely
risky strategy, according to a law firm seeking to launch a
shareholder class action against James Packer's gaming giant.

Solicitors Maurice Blackburn invited Crown shareholders on
February 3 to join in a potential class action to seek
compensation for the share price drop that followed the detention
in China of 18 Crown employees amid a clampdown on the illegal
promotion of gambling and the illicit outflow of money from the
country.

Crown shares fell 14% in one day, wiping more than $1.3bn off the
company's market value.

Maurice Blackburn class actions principal Julian Schimmel said
Crown should have notified shareholders of the risks associated
with its strategy well before the detentions, which included the
arrest of three Australians.

"We have reason to believe that: one, Crown knew the risks of its
activities in China; two, it knew of the importance of VIP revenue
to its business; and three, it therefore knew or should have known
that if [its alleged illegal marketing of gambling tours] were
revealed, there would be a revenue problem that would be material
to Crown's share price," Schimmel said.

"This is information that the company's shareholders should have
been told so that they could factor it into the share price and
buy their shares on a fully informed basis."

Schimmel said a crackdown announced by Chinese authorities in
February 2015 and similar arrests of employees of Korean casino
operators in June that year had demonstrated the risks involved.

"I think what [Crown] should have done at that time is tell the
sharemarket exactly what they were up to in China, and that is the
essence of the claim," Schimmel said.

He said Crown had not informed shareholders of the risks until the
arrests made the issue public, and shareholders therefore paid an
inflated price for their shares.

"It's not often that you get to beat the house, but a successful
class action can do that for shareholders wanting accountability
and better standards of corporate conduct from Crown," Schimmel
said.

He said it was evident from the market reaction to the detentions
that Chinese VIP gambler activity was important to Crown, which he
said had repeatedly made statements about the significance of
those gamblers for the company's strategy and earnings.


CUMBERLAND PEDIATRIC: "Barnes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Barnes and Jennifer London, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Cumberland
Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, PLLC, Cumberland Pediatric
Dentistry and Orthodontics of Cookeville, PLLC, Cumberland
Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics of Lawrenceburg, PLLC,
Cumberland Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics of Murfreesboro,
PLLC, Bryan Byrnside, Jennifer House, Brent Miller, Jack Stalker,
Felix Vincent and Peter Wojtkiewicz, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00156, (M.D. Tenn., January 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages owing, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs and the Putative Class were employed by the Defendants
as office workers, dental assistants, and dental hygienists.
Cumberland Pediatric defendants are professional limited liability
companies licensed to do dental care services in the State of
Tennessee.

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Timothy M. Lee, Esq.
       TIM LEE LAW FIRM
       1033 Demonbreun St., Suite 300
       Nashville, TN 37203
       Tel: (615) 988-0090
       Fax: (615) 630-6430
       Email: tim@timleelawfirm.com


DAVITA INC: April 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of DaVita
Inc. securities (DVA) from August 5, 2015 through October 21,
2016, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for DaVita
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the DaVita class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1026.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) DaVita and its senior executives purposefully steered
patients into unnecessary insurance plans in order to maximize
profits; (2) DaVita was using American Kidney Fund as a vehicle to
facilitate these improper practices; (3) as such, DaVita's
revenues and profits were illegally obtained; (4) in turn, DaVita
lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and
(5) as a result, Defendants' statements about DaVita's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 3, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1026.htmlor to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via e-mail at -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or --
kchan@rosenlegal.com


DETROIT, MI: No Summary Judgment Entered in "Davis" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY DAVIS and HATEMA DAVIS, Plaintiffs, v. CITY
OF DETROIT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-10547 (E.D. Mich.),
District Judge Paul D. Borman denied the Defendant's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment as moot.

The case involves the Defendant asserting that certain violations
of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act on the Plaintiffs' part were
discovered in the course of the raid on December 27, 2013, and
argues that those violations bar Plaintiffs from collecting
damages for their confiscated marijuana and associated property
under Michigan's wrongful-conduct rule.

Further, the Plaintiffs' counsel indicated on the record at the
status conference on January 20, 2017 that the Plaintiffs have not
asserted any substantive state-law claims in the action.
Accordingly, there is no need for the Court to dismiss such
claims, as they do not exist. Hence, the Court denied the
Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as moot.

A copy of the Court's Order dated January 24, 2017 is available at
https://goo.gl/PFQEwF from Leagle.com.

Timothy Davis, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Dennis A.
Dettmer, Dettmer and Dezsi.

Timothy Davis, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Michael R. Dezsi
-- mdezsi@dezsilaw.com -- Law Office of Michael R. Dezsi, PLLC.

City of Detroit, et al., Defendants, represented by Calvert A.
Bailey, Detroit City Law Department.

Arthur Leavells, et al., Defendants, represented by Lawrence T.
Garcia -- lgarcia@garcialawgrouppllc.com -- Garcia Law Group, PLLC
& Stephani J. LaBelle, Garcia Law Group, PLLC.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Settles Suit Over Tax Lien Statute
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark Iandolo at Legal News Wire reports that District of Columbia
Attorney General Karl A. Racine disclosed Jan. 18 that the
district will settle a class-action lawsuit filed by Boies,
Schiller & Flexner on behalf of property owners who lost homes and
home equity because of the district's tax-sale foreclosure system.
This system has since been reformed so as to provide more
safeguards for consumers.

"This settlement is good news for our city, because it provides
the relief that the D.C. Council intended when it passed reforms
of our tax-lien statute," Racine said.

In the class action case, the plaintiffs argued the district's
tax-lien system unfairly deprived homeowners of surplus equity
when they failed to pay their real property taxes.

"We commend The Washington Post and Legal Counsel for the Elderly,
who helped uncover in 2013 that vulnerable district citizens who
were unable to pay real property taxes could lose their homes and
home equity over a small tax bill," said Bill Isaacson of Boies,
Schiller & Flexner. "Now we also recognize the efforts of the D.C.
Council to stop this injustice from happening in the future and
Attorney General Racine's office for entering this settlement to
remedy what has happened before.


DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Flaum Seeks Cert. of Subway Customers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SHANE FLAUM, individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES,
INC., a Florida corporation, doing business as SUBWAY, Case No.
0:16-cv-61198-CMA (S.D. Fla.), filed with the Court a partially
redacted motion for class certification.

The proposed class is defined as:

     (i) All persons in the U.S. (ii) whose ___ debit or credit
     card, according to Defendant's records, was used to make a
     purchase at a Subway restaurant that (iii) according to
     Defendant's records, was using a version of Subway Payment
     Manager that was programmed to print ___ card expiration
     dates on customer transaction receipts, (vi) between
     January 20, 2016 and August 31, 2016.

The Plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit is brought to stop Subway's
most-recent Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act violations,
deter future violations, and enforce the Plaintiff's and the
proposed class members' rights.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Mxl2AdyO

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          E-mail: mhilicki@keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Bret L. Lusskin, Jr., Esq.
          BRET LUSSKIN, PA
          20803 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454-5841
          Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com


DPC NEW: Faces "Sanchez" Lawsuit Under FLSA, New York Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILSON RODRIGO VILLENA SANCHEZ, GUSTAVO GALARZA, and ANDRES LUNA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, against DPC NEW YORK INC. (d/b/a DP CONSULTING), DP
CONSULTING CORP. (d/b/a DP CONSULTING), THOMAS PEPE, and
CHRISTOPHER PEPE, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00455 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 21, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Plaintiffs were employed as construction foremen, warehouse
supervisor, fire safety inspector, mechanic and driver in
construction projects around New York City.  Defendants own,
operate, and/or control a construction company.

The Plaintiffs are 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


EAST COAST: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Reyes" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Jose Reyes and Cleyber Dubon,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
East Coast Lot & Pavement Maintenance Corp. d/b/a Ocean State
Sweeping, d/b/a United Sweeping; East Coast Lot and Pavement Inc.
and Uri Ben-Yashar, Case No. 1:16-cv-00592-M-PAS (D.R.I.), move
the Court to grant their motion to proceed as a collective action
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for Court-authorized
notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of the
potential opt-in plaintiffs.

The proposed class consists of all current and former employees,
who have worked for Defendants East Coast Lot & Pavement
Maintenance Corp. d/b/a Ocean State Sweeping, d/b/a United
Sweeping; East Coast Lot and Pavement Inc. and Uri Ben-Yashar in
the State of Rhode Island within the past three years of the
filing of a consent to sue by such employee and the date of final
judgment in this matter and who were, are or will be eligible for
but did not receive overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs also ask that the Court (a) direct the Defendants
to provide the Plaintiffs with the necessary information of the
potential opt-in Plaintiffs, (b) approve the sending of the Notice
of Pendency of Lawsuit, (c) authorize the posting of the Notice
and Consent forms on Plaintiffs' counsel's Web site and the option
to execute opt-in consent forms electronically online, (d) permit
the posting and distribution of the Notice and Consent forms at
the nearest Consular offices of Mexico, Guatemala and Bolivia, and
permit the Plaintiffs' counsel to send follow up post cards and/or
emails to any potential opt-in Plaintiffs who have not responded,
and (e) order the Defendants to post the English and Spanish
Notice and Consent Forms in conspicuous locations in all of their
Rhode Island worksites.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=64OQ22Vy

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert McCreanor, Esq.
          Curtis Pouliot-Alvarez, Esq.
          RHODE ISLAND CENTER FOR JUSTICE
          One Empire Plaza
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 491-1101
          Facsimile: (401) 228-6780
          E-mail: rmccreanor@centerforjustice.org
                  cpouliotalvarez@centerforjustice.org


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Taylor" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is entitled as Christine M. Taylor,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00541 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2017).

Enhanced Recovery provides business process outsourcing services.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss on Feb. 9
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation,
the defendants' motion to dismiss is scheduled to be heard, after
completion of the briefing, on February 9, 2017, Extreme Networks,
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 2, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2016.

On October 23 and 29, 2015, complaints were filed for violations
of securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and three of its former
officers (Charles W. Berger, Kenneth B. Arola, and John T.
Kurtzweil).  Subsequently, the cases were consolidated.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the securities laws by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and
concealing material adverse facts regarding Extreme Networks'
current financial condition and growth prospects. Plaintiffs seek
damages of an unspecified amount on behalf of a class of investors
who purchased the Company's common stock from September 12, 2013
through April 9, 2015.

On June 28, 2016, the court appointed a lead plaintiff.  On
September 26, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.

On November 10, 2016 defendants filed a motion to dismiss.  The
motion is scheduled to be heard, after completion of the briefing,
on February 9, 2017.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the claims.

Extreme Networks, Inc., together with its subsidiaries is a leader
in providing software-driven networking solutions for enterprise
customers.  The Company conducts its sales and marketing
activities on a worldwide basis through distributors, resellers
and the Company's field sales organization. Extreme was
incorporated in California in 1996 and reincorporated in Delaware
in 1999.


FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL: Faces Mr. Ticket Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forty Niners
Football Company LLC. The case is captioned as MR. TICKET, INC.
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
PLAINTIFF, v. SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY, FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL
COMPANY LLC, and DOES NO. 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. CGC 17
556740 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 30, 2017).

Forty Niners Football owns and operates a professional sports club
that plays football leagues in the United States.


FOWLER HEIN: Faces "Johnson" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J. Mike Williams and
Fowler, Hein, Cheatwood & Williams, P.A. The case is entitled as
Khalil Johnson, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. J. Mike Williams, an
individual, and Fowler, Hein, Cheatwood & Williams, P.A., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00349-LMM-CMS (N.D. Ga., Jan. 30,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May.

Fowler & Hein provides representation and counsel in apartment and
property management law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shimshon E. Wexler, Esq.
          SHIMSHON WEXLER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          315 West Ponce De Leon, Suite 250
          Atlanta, GA 30030
          Telephone: (212) 760 2400
          E-mail: swexleresq@gmail.com


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Motion to Dismiss "Cryer" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the Company's
motion to dismiss the case, Cryer v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et
al., has been denied.

On July 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Cryer
v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Franklin, the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan ("Plan")
Investment Committee, and unnamed Investment Committee members.
The plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, alleging that the
defendants selected mutual funds sponsored and managed by the
Company (the "Funds") as investment options for the Plan when
allegedly lower-cost and better performing non-proprietary
investment vehicles were available. The plaintiff also claims that
the total Plan costs, inclusive of investment management and
administrative fees, are excessive. The plaintiff alleges that
Plan losses exceed $79.0 million and seeks, among other things,
damages, disgorgement, rescission of the Plan's investments in the
Funds, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

Franklin's motion to dismiss and motion for summary adjudication
were denied on January 17, 2017.

Management strongly believes that the claims made in the lawsuit
are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
Franklin cannot predict with certainty, however, the eventual
outcome of the lawsuit or whether it will have a material negative
impact on the Company.


G&K SERVICES: "Klein" Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
G&K Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 24, 2016, that the parties have
entered into a stipulation to dismiss the case, Klein v. G&K
Services.

On September 26, 2016, a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit, captioned Klein v. G&K Services, Incorporated, et al.,
Civil Action No. 16-cv-03198 (DWF) (KMM), was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota, against the
Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors. The
complaint asserted claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and alleged, among other things,
that the Company's proxy statement contained false and misleading
statements and/or omitted material information. The complaint
sought, among other things, injunctive relief preventing
consumption of the Merger, monetary damages and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On October 28, 2016, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
making supplemental disclosures to the Company's definitive proxy
statement filed with the SEC on September 29, 2016. On October 28,
2016, the parties filed a stipulation, and the court entered an
order, dismissing this action with prejudice as to the named
plaintiff and without prejudice as to all other putative class
members.

G&K Services, Inc., founded in 1902 and headquartered in
Minnetonka, Minnesota, is a service-focused provider of branded
uniform and facility services programs.


GARY M. SINGER: Faces "Adjoda" Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Law Office of
Gary M. Singer, P.A. The case is captioned as Lisa S. Adjoda, on
behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. Law Office of Gary M. Singer, P.A., the Defendant,
Case No. 9:17-cv-80112-RLR (S.D. Fla., Jan. 30, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.

Gary M. Singer, PA is a law firm in Sunrise, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GC SERVICES: Faces "Stern" Suit in Eastern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership. The case is captioned as Rochel Stern, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. GC Services Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00564 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2017).

GC Services is a privately-held outsourcing provider of call
center management and collection agency services in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GIGAMON INC: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit
against Gigamon Inc.,. Investors, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Gigamon shares between October 27, 2016 and January 17,
2017 inclusive, are encouraged to contact the firm in advance of
the March 28, 2017 lead plaintiff deadline.

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

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

The investigation is centered on whether Gigamon and some of its
officers and/or directors have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Gigamon is involved with products and services that provide
customers visibility and power over network traffic for
corporations and service providers in the United States, as well
as various international locations.

On January 18, 2017, Gigamon revealed early fourth quarter and
fiscal year 2016 results. In the report, Gigamon stated that
fourth quarter revenue for the period ending December 31, 2016
would be significantly less contrasted to the guidance last year.
The Company attributed fourth quarter revenue was poor due to
"lower than expected product booking" as well as the decision of
existing customers to hold "purchasing decisions into 2017." When
this information was disclosed to the public, the value of Gigamon
stock fell sharply, causing shareholders serious harm.


GILT GROUPE: Faces "Lucia" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gilt Groupe
Holdings, Inc. The case is titled as Marett Lucia, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Gilt
Groupe Holdings, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00713
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2017).

Gilt Groupe provides instant insider access to top designer
labels.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GOLDMONT REALTY: Faces "Romero" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goldmont Realty
Corp. The case is styled as Gregorio Romero, Individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Goldmont
Realty Corp., 612 Ocean Avenue Partners LLC, Leon Goldenberg, Sam
Brown, Jonathan Samet, and Kenny Cesjani, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00545 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2017).

Goldmont Realty owns and manages a bevy of properties.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GREENSPOON MARDER: Parties Directed to File Stipulation to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kathleen M. Williams directed the parties in the lawsuit
entitled MAUREEN PATTERSON, et al. v. GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A.,
Case No. 0:16-cv-60025-KMW (S.D. Fla.), to file a joint
stipulation to dismiss on or before February 6, 2017.

According to the order, a mediator's report indicates that the
Parties have reached a settlement in the matter.  If the Parties
wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction, they are advised that
they must submit the settlement agreement for review and any
stipulation must comply with the Eleventh Circuit's holding in
Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir.
2012).

Judge Williams also denied as moot all pending motions.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cXW5lQkz


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Underway in Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Incorporated said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 26, 2017, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2016, that discovery is ongoing in the case, In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "On October 1, 2007, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against
Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") seeking
compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who
purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September
24, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint alleged
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

"The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg,
Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was
entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common
stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during
the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the
reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed,
the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff
class significant losses.

"On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of our officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages
and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock
between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in
the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the
allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original
Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

"On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period
through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the
violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose
"significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts,
production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The
amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the
first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would
adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share
in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share value
and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

"On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing
of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That
same day, the Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement
System as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law
firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead
counsel.

"On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated
Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal
year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated
Complaint alleged that defendants knowingly or recklessly failed
to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal
navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated
Complaint alleged that when Harman's true financial condition
became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined
significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class.

"On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.

"On April 12, 2012, In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (D.D.C.) was
reassigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras.

"On September 5, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments on
defendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the Court, on
September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing on
defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2014, the Court
granted a motion to dismiss, without prejudice. The Lead Plaintiff
appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") and, on June 23,
2015, the District Court's ruling was reversed and remanded for
further proceedings. On July 23, 2015, the defendants filed a
motion for a rehearing en banc before the Court of Appeals, which
was denied on August 26, 2015. The defendants filed a petition for
a writ of certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court review on November
24, 2015, which was denied on February 29, 2016. Discovery in this
matter is ongoing."

Harman believes it is a leader in the design and engineering of
connected products and solutions for automakers, consumers and
enterprises worldwide, including connected car systems, audio and
visual products, enterprise automation solutions and connected
services.


HARTFORD CASUALTY: Johnson Moves to Certify Class and Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------------
G. Grant Johnson moves the Court for an order:

   (1) granting class certification in the action titled G. GRANT
       JOHNSON, an individual, on behalf of himself and a class
       of similarly situated persons v. HARTFORD CASUALTY
       INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation; and DOES 1-25,
       Case No. 3:15-cv-04138-WHO (N.D. Cal.), pursuant to Rules
       23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   (2) appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

   (3) appointing the Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel.

The proposed class and subclass are:

     Proposed Class:

     All California residents insured under a policy issued by
     Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Inc. who suffered a
     partial loss to a covered structure between August 13, 2011
     and the present day who were not paid either (a) the limits
     of the policy's coverage for structural loss or (b) full
     replacement cost for the structural loss without deduction
     for depreciation.


     Proposed Non-Depreciable Component Sub-Class:

     All members of the Proposed Class whose Actual Cash Value
     payment was reduced by depreciation to one or more of the
     following structural components and who did not fully
     recover all depreciation in a subsequent claim for
     replacement cost value: acoustical ceilings, baseboards,
     basement floor systems, bath cabinets, brick, ceilings and
     ceiling suspension, ceramic tile, cement, cement posts,
     chimneys, closet doors, closet shelves, concrete footings,
     concrete foundations, custom millwork, drywall, electrical
     wiring and insulation, engineered wood, exterior siding,
     fiber cement, fiberglass doors, fireplaces, floor trusses,
     framing, insulation, laminated strand lumber, lath, mantles,
     marble, natural stone, natural wood flooring, ornamental
     iron, plaster, plumbing, poured concrete structural systems,
     roof trusses, rough carpentry, rough structure, slate
     flagstone floors, stairs, stone, stucco, terrazzo, timber
     frames, toilets, trim, two-by-four studs, walls, wall
     panels, wood doors, and wood shutters.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 5, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Cf8rkcGn

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Von Loewenfeldt, Esq.
          Ivo Labar, Esq.
          Daniel J. Veroff, Esq.
          KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP
          101 Mission Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1727
          Telephone: (415) 371-8500
          Facsimile: (415) 371-0500
          E-mail: mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com
                  labar@kerrwagstaffe.com
                  veroff@kerrwagstaffe.com


HOSPITAL MEDIA: Faces Kenneth A. Thomas Suit in Dist. of Conn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hospital Media
Network, LLC. The case is captioned as Kenneth A. Thomas MD, LLC,
a Connecticut limited liability company, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Hospital Media Network, LLC, doing business as Health Media
Network, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00137-JAM (D. Conn., Jan. 30, 2017).
The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer.

Health Media offers advertising services. It provides customizable
digital and static advertising displays in hospitals and medical
offices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Shapiro, Esq.
          Shapiro Law Offices, LLC
          32 Washington St.
          Middletown, CT 06457
          Telephone: (860) 347 3325
          Facsimile: (860) 347 3874
          E-mail: jshapiro@shapirolawofficesct.com


JON E. LITSCHER: Faces "Vega" Suit in Western Dist. of Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jon E. Litscher. The
case is styled as Herminio Vega, on behalf of himself and
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Jon E. Litscher,
Lizzie Tegels, and Melinda Derus, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-
cv-00066-bbc (W.D. Wisc., Jan. 30, 2017). The case is assigned to
Hon. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Corey Francis Finkelmeyer, Esq.
          WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 7857
          Madison, WI 53707
          Telephone: (608) 266 7342
          Facsimile: (608) 267 8906
          E-mail: federalorderscl@doj.state.wi.us


K12 INC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------
K12, Inc. is seeking dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit in California.  The motion to dismiss was filed
Jan. 31, 2017.

K12 said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 27, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2016, that "On July 20, 2016, a securities
class action lawsuit captioned Babulal Tarapara v. K12 Inc. et al
was filed against the Company, two of its officers and one of its
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Case No. 3:16-cv-04069 ("Tarapara
Case").  The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
between November 7, 2013 and October 27, 2015, inclusive, and
alleges violations by the Company and the individual defendants of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Exchange Act, and violations by the individual defendants of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint sought
unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

"Additionally, on September 15, 2016, a second securities class
action lawsuit captioned Gil Tuinenburg v. K12 Inc. et al was
filed against the Company, two of its officers and one of its
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Case No. 3:16-cv-05305
("Tuinenburg Case").

"On October 6, 2016, the Court consolidated the Tarapara Case and
the Tuinenburg Case and appointed Babul Tarapara and Mark Beadle
as lead plaintiff. On December 2, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint against us.  The amended complaint named an
additional former officer as a defendant and specified a class
period start date of October 10, 2013. The amended complaint
alleges materially false or misleading statements and omissions
regarding the decision of the Agora Cyber Charter School not to
renew its managed public school agreement with us, student
academic and Scantron results, and other statements regarding
student academic performance and K12's academic services and
offerings. Our Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint is due to
be filed no later than January 30, 2017. The Company intends to
defend vigorously against each and every allegation and claim set
forth in the amended complaint."

K12 is a technology-based education company.


KB HOME: Paid $7.5 Million in Wage and Hour Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
KB Home said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2016, that the Company paid the amount of $7.5
million in the wage and hour litigation.

The Company said, "In May 2011, a group of current and former
sales representatives filed a collective action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Galveston Division entitled Edwards, K. v. KB Home.  The lawsuit
alleged that we misclassified sales representatives and failed to
pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07)."

"In September 2012, the Edwards court conditionally certified a
nationwide class, and in May 2015, scheduled an initial trial
involving a portion of the plaintiffs for December 2015.

"In September 2013, some of the plaintiffs in the Edwards case
filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court entitled Andrea L.
Bejenaru, et al. v. KB Home, et al.  The lawsuit alleged
violations of California laws relating to overtime, meal period
and rest break pay, itemized wage statements, waiting time
penalties and unfair business practices for a class of sales
representatives.  Although the case involved a putative class of
individuals who were our sales representatives from September 2009
forward, the Bejenaru case was not certified as a class action.

"In the second quarter of 2015, plaintiff representatives in the
Edwards and the Bejenaru cases claimed $66 million in compensatory
damages, penalties and interest, as well as injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs for both matters.

"On November 18, 2015, we reached a tentative mediated settlement
with the plaintiff representatives in both cases that remains
subject to judicial approval.  Under the terms of the tentative
settlement, we agreed to pay $7.5 million to a settlement
administrator for distribution to individual settling plaintiffs,
subject to obtaining releases from, and a specified threshold of
participation by, such individuals.

"On May 2, 2016, after further negotiations to resolve important
details related to the claims submission process for individual
settling plaintiffs, we reached final settlement terms with the
plaintiff representatives. The final settlement terms did not
change the settlement amount, which is intended to be inclusive of
all payments to settling plaintiffs and all related fees and
costs, or the required threshold participation level.

"On May 19, 2016, the Edwards court approved the final settlement
terms with respect to the Edwards case and, with the Bejenaru
court's consent, preliminarily approved the final settlement terms
with respect to the Bejenaru case.

"On September 15, 2016, the court approved the final settlement
terms with respect to the Bejenaru case. In 2015, we established
an accrual for these cases in the amount of $7.5 million, which we
paid as of November 30, 2016."


KELLY SERVICES: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Holmes" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled TRACIE HOLMES, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KELLY SERVICES USA,
LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, and KELLY SERVICES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, HEALTH NET FEDERAL SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:16-cv-13164-MFL-DRG
(E.D. Mich.), moves, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for
entry of an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA collective;

   (2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-authorized notice
       of Plaintiff's FLSA claim is sent (via first-class mail
       and e-mail) to:

       All current and former hourly call center agents who
       worked for Defendants in Health Net Federal Services,
       LLC's Hampton, Virginia call center at any time in the
       past three years; and

   (3) requiring the Defendants to identify all potential opt-in
       plaintiffs by providing their names, last known addresses,
       dates of employment, job titles, phone numbers, and e-mail
       addresses in an electronic and importable format within 10
       days of the entry of the order.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WeKERDt5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  jyoung@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                  jrusch@johnsonbecker.com


KLA-TENCOR CORP: Delaware Chancery Court Dismissed Rooney Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
KLA-Tencor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the Delaware
Chancery Court has dismissed the Rooney action with prejudice as
to plaintiff Rooney.

Terminated Merger Agreement

On October 20, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement" or
"Merger") with Lam Research Corporation ("Lam Research") which was
subject to regulatory approvals. On October 5, 2016, the parties
mutually agreed to terminate the Merger Agreement and no
termination fees were payable by either party.

The California Class Actions

In connection with the previously announced Merger transaction,
four purported KLA-Tencor stockholders filed putative class
actions on behalf of all KLA-Tencor stockholders. Three actions
were filed in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County
captioned, Hedgecock v. KLA-Tencor Corp., et al., Case No.
115CV287329, Karr v. KLA-Tencor Corporation, et al., Case No.
115CV287331, (both filed on October 28, 2015) and Spoleto Corp. v.
Wallace, et al., Case No. 115CV289552 (filed on December 29, 2015)
(collectively, the "California Class Actions"). The California
Class Actions all named KLA-Tencor, the members of the KLA-Tencor
Board, Lam Research, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2 (together with
Merger Sub 1 and Lam Research, the "Lam Group") as defendants. The
California Class Actions alleged that the members of the KLA-
Tencor Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, causing KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction with
the Lam Group at an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair
process, and by making disclosures concerning the transaction that
are materially misleading. Plaintiffs alleged that the Lam Group
aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin or
rescind KLA-Tencor's transaction with the Lam Group, as
applicable, as well as an award of damages and attorneys' fees, in
addition to other relief.

The Delaware Chancery Court Class Action

One putative class action was filed on November 10, 2015, in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware captioned, Rooney v.
Wallace, et al., Case No. 11700. The Rooney action was filed
against the members of the KLA-Tencor Board and similar to the
California Class Actions alleged that the members of the KLA-
Tencor Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, causing KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction with
Lam Research at an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process,
and by making disclosures concerning the transaction that are
materially misleading. Plaintiff Rooney sought to enjoin or
rescind KLA-Tencor's transaction with Lam Research, as applicable,
as well as an award of attorneys' fees, in addition to other
relief.

Agreement in Principle to Resolve Merger-Related Litigation

On or about December 29, 2015, plaintiffs in all four actions
agreed to coordinate and proceed in the California Superior Court.
On February 5, 2016, an agreement in principle was reached with
the plaintiffs in the Rooney Action, Hedgecock Action, and Spoleto
Action to settle those actions. Pursuant to the agreement in
principle, as set forth in a signed memorandum of understanding,
the parties agreed to resolve disputed legal claims and KLA-Tencor
and Lam agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures regarding
the proposed Merger, as set forth in the Form 8-K filed by KLA-
Tencor on February 5, 2016. None of the defendants in these
actions admitted wrongdoing of any kind, including that there were
any inadequacies in any disclosure, any breach of any fiduciary
duty, or aiding or abetting any of the foregoing. On February 17,
2016, the California Superior Court dismissed the Karr action
pursuant to a stipulation by the parties.

In light of the termination of the Merger Agreement, the parties
to the Rooney, Hedgecock, and Spoleto actions agreed that the
actions should be dismissed. In response to plaintiffs' intention
to submit fee applications to the California Superior Court and
the Delaware Court of Chancery, KLA-Tencor agreed to pay
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $140,000
in connection with certain claims that the plaintiffs believe were
mooted by KLA-Tencor's filing of the supplemental disclosures on
the Form 8-K on February 5, 2016.

On January 13, 2017, the parties to the Rooney action filed a
Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Payment of Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses, Notice to Stockholders, and the Dismissal of
the Actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the parties to
the Hedgecock and Spoleto actions filed a Joint Request for
Dismissal with the California Superior Court.

On January 18, 2017, the California Superior Court granted the
request and dismissed the Hedgecock and Spoleto actions with
prejudice.

On January 23, 2017, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed the
Rooney action with prejudice as to plaintiff Rooney.

KLA-Tencor is a supplier of process control and yield management
solutions for the semiconductor and related nanoelectronics
industries.


KOHN LAW: Dunbar Moves for Certification of Class and Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled AMY DUNBAR, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. KOHN LAW FIRM, S.C.,
MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and ENCORE
CAPITAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00088-PP (E.D. Wisc.), asks
the Court, pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act,
to certify a Class and a Subclass:

     The Class is defined as:

     (a) all individuals with Wisconsin addresses (b) to whom the
     Kohn Law Firm, S.C. sent a letter offering a settlement (c)
     which letter stated that the settlement might have tax
     consequences, and (d) the letter was sent on or after
     January 19, 2016 and February 9, 2017.

     The Subclass consists of:

     (a) all individuals with Wisconsin addresses (b) to whom the
     Kohn Law Firm, S.C., sent a letter offering a settlement (c)
     of an account owned by Midland Funding, LLC (d) which letter
     stated that the settlement might have tax consequences, (e)
     and (e) the letter was sent on or after January 19, 2016 and
     February 9, 2017.

Excluded from the Class and Subclass are the Defendants, all
officers, members, partners, managers, directors, and employees of
Defendants as well as members of their respective immediate
families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action and all
members of their immediate families.

The Plaintiff further asks that Stern Thomasson LLP and the Law
Office of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed
counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nOPMrU88

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 917-4500
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Heather B. Jones, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1329
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
          E-mail: heather@sternthomasson.com
                  philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com


KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Settlement Approved in "McCarter" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael T. Mason entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Janice McCarter, the Plaintiff, v. Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit, P.C.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:13-cv-03909 (N.D. Ill.), granting a
motion to certify class and for final approval of class settlement
agreement; motion to supplement motion for final approval of class
settlement; and motion for fees and costs pursuant to the
settlement agreement.

A copy of the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 2, 2017,
is available at no charge at:

     http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YfHVbDCK

Class Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs assert that KSN's
initial communication with Plaintiffs relating to the alleged
failure to pay alleged condominium assessments confused or misled
Class Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs regarding the right of
KSN to demand payment within 30 days and the right of the Class
Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs to a 30-day window within
which to dispute the debt or request additional information.

The Class Settlement Agreement and Release is entered into by and
between Janice McCarter, Krystyna Scehura, and Amy Lill and
Christopher Wojdelko, individually and on behalf of a settlement
class, and Michael Wood and Alexandria Stockman, and Dudley Locke,
Plaintiffs' counsel, Kenneth M. DucDuong, Mark T. Lavery, and
Mario K. Kasalo, and Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit, a professional
corporation.

Among others, the Settlement Agreement provides that KSN agrees to
create a settlement fund of $290,000 and to pay the expenses and
costs of notice to the Settlement Class and the administration of
the Agreement above and apart from the Settlement Fund.

The Settlement Fund shall pay McCarter a damages and incentive
award of $5,000 and shall pay Scehura, and Lill and Wojdelko
damages and incentive awards of $3,500 each.  The Settlement Fund
shall pay Wood, Stockman, and Locke individual awards of $3,500
each. The total amount of payments to the Class Plaintiffs is
$15,500, and the total amount of payments to the Individual
Plaintiffs is $10,500.

KSN agrees not to object, and shall not object, to a petition for
an award of attorney's fees and costs filed by Plaintiffs' counsel
for an amount up to $114,000, of which $84,000 shall be for
attorneys' fees and costs for the Class Lawsuits and $30,000 for
attorneys' fees and costs for the Individual Lawsuits.

The Parties agree to the appointment of CAC Services Group, LLC as
the Settlement Administrator. Class Counsel shall pay the cost of
notice (up to the maximum of $30,000) from the $320,000 forwarded
to Class Counsel Kenneth M. DucDuong's firm's client trust account
and shall communicate with KSN's counsel regarding the payment of
the cost of notice.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement dated August 11, 2016, is
available at:

                        https://is.gd/q6lsb7


KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Settlement Approved in "Schehura" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael T. Mason entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned Krystyna Scehura, the Plaintiff, v. Kovitz Shifrin
Nesbit, P.C, the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-08838 (N.D. Ill.),
granting the motion to certify class and for final approval of
class settlement agreement; the motion to supplement motion for
final approval of class settlement; and the motion for fees and
costs pursuant to the settlement agreement.

A copy of the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 2, 2017,
is available at no charge at:

     http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=o2H2ACIs

Class Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs assert that KSN's
initial communication with Plaintiffs relating to the alleged
failure to pay alleged condominium assessments confused or misled
Class Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs regarding the right of
KSN to demand payment within 30 days and the right of the Class
Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs to a 30-day window within
which to dispute the debt or request additional information.

The Class Settlement Agreement and Release is entered into by and
between Janice McCarter, Krystyna Scehura, and Amy Lill and
Christopher Wojdelko, individually and on behalf of a settlement
class, and Michael Wood and Alexandria Stockman, and Dudley Locke,
Plaintiffs' counsel, Kenneth M. DucDuong, Mark T. Lavery, and
Mario K. Kasalo, and Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit, a professional
corporation.

Among others, the Settlement Agreement provides that KSN agrees to
create a settlement fund of $290,000 and to pay the expenses and
costs of notice to the Settlement Class and the administration of
the Agreement above and apart from the Settlement Fund.

The Settlement Fund shall pay McCarter a damages and incentive
award of $5,000 and shall pay Scehura, and Lill and Wojdelko
damages and incentive awards of $3,500 each.  The Settlement Fund
shall pay Wood, Stockman, and Locke individual awards of $3,500
each. The total amount of payments to the Class Plaintiffs is
$15,500, and the total amount of payments to the Individual
Plaintiffs is $10,500.

KSN agrees not to object, and shall not object, to a petition for
an award of attorney's fees and costs filed by Plaintiffs' counsel
for an amount up to $114,000, of which $84,000 shall be for
attorneys' fees and costs for the Class Lawsuits and $30,000 for
attorneys' fees and costs for the Individual Lawsuits.

The Parties agree to the appointment of CAC Services Group, LLC as
the Settlement Administrator. Class Counsel shall pay the cost of
notice (up to the maximum of $30,000) from the $320,000 forwarded
to Class Counsel Kenneth M. DucDuong's firm's client trust account
and shall communicate with KSN's counsel regarding the payment of
the cost of notice.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement dated August 11, 2016, is
available at:

                        https://is.gd/q6lsb7


LA BELLA: Faces "Flores" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joel Martinez d/b/a
La Bella Pizzeria. The case is captioned as Carmelo Flores, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Joel Martinez d/b/a La Bella Pizzeria, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00561 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2017).

The Defendant sells New York style pizza.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


LE BERNARDIN: Faces "Lucia" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Le Bernardin, Inc.
The case is entitled as Marett Lucia, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Le Bernardin, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00716 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2017).

Le Bernardin is an elite French restaurant offering refined
seafood, expert service & luxurious decor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LINEAR TECHNOLOGY: "Guerra" Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
The case, David Guerra v. Linear Technology Corp. et al., has been
dismissed, Linear Technology said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended January 1, 2017/

On September 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the Analog Devices acquisition was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
David Guerra v. Linear Technology Corp. et al. (the "Action") on
behalf of a putative class of the Company's public stockholders.
The Action alleged that the Company and the Board failed to comply
with federal securities laws by failing to disclose material
information in our definitive proxy statement, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 19, 2016.  While
the Company believes that the definitive proxy statement disclosed
all material information, in order to avoid the burden, expense
and distraction of litigation, the Company filed a Current Report
on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
12, 2016 to supplement the disclosures in the definitive proxy
statement and agreed to pay certain attorneys' fees.  The claims
of the named Plaintiff were subsequently dismissed with prejudice
on October 24, 2016.

Linear Technology Corporation, a member of the S&P 500, has been
designing, manufacturing and marketing a broad line of high
performance analog integrated circuits for major companies
worldwide for over three decades. The Company's products provide
an essential bridge between our analog world and the digital
electronics in communications, networking, industrial,
transportation, computer, medical, instrumentation, consumer, and
military and aerospace systems. Linear Technology produces power
management, data conversion, signal conditioning, RF and interface
ICs, uModule subsystems, and wireless sensor network products.


LOGITECH INC: Faces "Chernus" Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Logitech, Inc. The
case is titled as STEVEN CHERNUS and EDWARD SHAPIRO, individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
LOGITECH, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00673-FLW-TJB
(D.N.J., Jan. 31, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Freda
L. Wolfson.

Logitech is a Swiss global provider of personal computer and
mobile accessories, with EMEA headquarters in Lausanne,
Switzerland and American headquarters in Newark, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William J. Pinilis, Esq.
          PINILIS HALPERN
          160 Morris Street
          Morristown, NJ 07962
          Telephone: (973) 401 1111
          Facsimile: (973) 401 1114
          E-mail: wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Certification of Classes Sought in "Brown" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason D. Brown and Laszlo Bozso, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit
captioned JASON DAVID BROWN, et al. v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., et
al., Case No. 5:13-cv-00079-RLV-DSC (W.D.N.C.), move the Court for
certification of two classes of consumers with claims under the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act against First Advantage LNS
Screening Solutions (formerly LexisNexis Screening Solutions).

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Brett E. Dressler, Esq.
          SELLERS, AYERS, DORTCH & LYONS, P.A.
          301 S. McDowell Street, Suite 410
          Charlotte, NC 28204
          Telephone: (704) 377-5050
          Facsimile: (704) 339-0172
          E-mail: bdressler@sellersayers.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          628 East 9th Street
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                  cbc@caddellchapman.com

               - and -

          Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
          Anthony R. Pecora, Esq.
          O'TOOLE, MCLAUGHLIN, DOOLEY & PECORA, CO. LPA
          5455 Detroit Road
          Sheffield Village, OH 44054
          Telephone: (440) 930-4001
          Facsimile: (440) 934-7208
          E-mail: mdooley@omdplaw.com
                  apecora@omdplaw.com

               - and -

          Ian B. Lyngklip, Esq.
          LYNGKLIP & ASSOCIATES CONSUMER LAW CENTER, PLC
          24500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 206
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 208-8864
          E-mail: IanLyngklip@Att.Net

Defendant Lowe's Companies, Inc., is represented by:

          Brent Alan Rosser, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          101 South Tryon Street, Suite 3500
          Charlotte, NC 28280
          Telephone: (704) 378-4707
          Facsimile: (704) 331-5146
          E-mail: brosser@hunton.com

               - and -

          Kevin James White, Esq.
          Robert T. Quackenboss, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 955-1886
          Facsimile: (202) 778-2201
          E-mail: kwhite@hunton.com
                  rquackenboss@hunton.com

Defendant LexisNexis Screening Solutions, Inc., is represented by:

          C. Knox Withers, Esq.
          Henry R. Chalmers, Esq.
          ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY, LLP
          171 17th Street NW, Suite 2100
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 873-8129
          Facsimile: (404) 873-8130
          E-mail: knox.withers@agg.com
                  henry.chalmers@agg.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Jacobovitz, Esq.
          ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY, LLP
          1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 677-4056
          Facsimile: (202) 677-4057
          E-mail: jeffrey.jacobovitz@agg.com

               - and -

          Pearlynn Gilleece Houck, Esq.
          Robert Walker Fuller, III, Esq.
          ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA
          101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
          Charlotte, NC 28246
          Telephone: (704) 377-8396
          Facsimile: (704) 373-3996
          E-mail: phouck@rbh.com
                  rfuller@rbh.com


LUCIANO SHIPPING: Faces "Nunez" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luciano Shipping,
Inc. The case is titled as Sandy Rodriguez Nunez, individually and
in behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Luciano Shipping, Inc., jointly and severally, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00694 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2017).

Luciano Shipping is cargo & freight company in Bronx, New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MAIL TRANSPORT: Elkins Seeks Certification of Employee Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled IRAN ELKINS, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v DOUGLAS D.
CLINE; CHAD D. CLINE; DDC PROPERTIES, LLC; MAIL TRANSPORT, INC.;
and BJ TRUCKING CO., INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01118-
TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order
certifying a class of:

   "all former employees of Defendants (excepting individual
   Defendants) (a) who worked anytime in September through
   December 2015 but were not paid their earned wages and accrued
   vacation leave balances when Defendants stopped their trucking
   operations in October 2015; and/or (b) whose employment was
   terminated in October or November 2015 without 60 days'
   advance written notice satisfying the requirements of Worker
   Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act).

Defendants operated trucking operations and employed over 150
employees, most of them over-the-road truckers.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Wall, Esq.
          HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC
          P.O. Box 20570
          Greensboro, NC 27420-0570
          Telephone: (336) 273 1600
          Facsimile: (336) 274 4650
          E-mail: jwall@greensborolaw.com


MARS PETCARE: Pope McGlamry Files Suit Over Prescription Pet Food
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pope McGlamry along with Ward and Smith, Walkup Melodia Kelly &
Schoenberger and Gray Plant Mooty have filed a class action suit
on behalf of consumers who have been overcharged by the
manufacturers and retailers of "prescription" pet food.  Four
brands of "prescription" pet food are at issue:

HILL'S "PRESCRIPTION DIET"
PURINA "PRO PLAN VETERINARY DIETS"
ROYAL CANIN "VETERINARY DIET"
IAMS "VETERINARY FORMULA"

The defendant pet food manufacturers in the case are Mars Petcare
US, Inc. ("Mars"), which sells prescription pet food under the
brand names Royal Canin and Iams; Nestle Purina Petcare, Co.
("Purina"); and Hill's Pet Nutrition Inc. ("Hill's").

Prescription pet food is dog and cat food that is sold to the
consumer with a prescription from a veterinarian.  However, the
prescription requirement comes from the manufacturers and sellers
and is not mandated by federal -- or any other -- law.  There is
no legal mandate for a prescription from the FDA or any other
government agency.  Furthermore, there is no significant
difference between pet food sold by prescription and regular pet
food sold without a prescription -- other than a significant price
differential.  There are no drugs or medicines in prescription pet
food, and the FDA has made no assessments of these products.

Additional defendants include:  PetSmart, Inc. ("PetSmart"),
Medical Management International, Inc. ("Banfield Pet Hospital")
and BluePearl Vet, LLC ("BluePearl Vet Hospital").  PetSmart is a
major retail seller of prescription pet foods.  Banfield Pet
Hospital is the largest chain of veterinary clinics in the United
States, and typically operates out of PetSmart.  BluePearl Vet
Hospital is the largest chain of veterinary emergency care clinics
in the United States.  Pet food manufacturer Mars has a majority
ownership stake in Banfield Pet Hospital and wholly owns BluePearl
Vet Hospital.

Counsel for the class members assert that pet food manufacturers,
and their affiliates, have deceptively marketed this pet food as
requiring a prescription, and have colluded to create a market for
prescription pet food and to sell this food at prices higher than
the prices of regular pet food.

Consumers who have purchased any of these prescription pet foods
over the past three years are urged to be part of this class
action lawsuit to recover the money they overpaid, along with
additional damages.  If you have any information about this
practice or these pet foods, we are continuing our investigation
and would be interested in speaking with you. Please contact Pope
McGlamry today by submitting a free case evaluation or calling
(844) 321-9425.


MED FOODS: Koller Seeks to Certify Class of Olive Oil Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SCOTT KOLLER, an individual,
on behalf of himself, the general public and those similarly
situated v. MED FOODS, INC., AND DEOLEO USA, INC., Case No. 3:14-
cv-02400-RS (N.D. Cal.), moves to certify these two classes:

     (1) Imported from Italy Class ("IFI Class"):

     All purchasers in California of liquid Bertolli Extra Light,
     Classico, or Extra Virgin olive oil, between May 23, 2010
     and May 30, 2014, except for those bearing labels "Organic,"
     "Robusto," "Gentile," or "Fragrante."


     (2) Extra Virgin Olive Oil Class ("EVOO Class"):

     All purchasers in California of bottles of Bertolli Extra
     Virgin olive oil, between May 23, 2010 and August 15, 2015,
     except for those bearing labels "Organic," "Robusto,"
     "Gentile," or "Fragrante."

The Classes will pursue claims under the Unfair Competition Law,
the California Legal Remedies Act, the California False
Advertising Law, and for common law fraud, deceit and
misrepresentation.

Scott Koller further asks to (1) be named as class representative
on all claims, and (2) appoint Gutride Safier LLP and Tycko &
Zavareei LLP as class counsel.  The Plaintiff finally asks the
Court to order the parties to meet and confer and present the
Court, within 15 days of an order granting class certification, a
proposed notice to the certified classes.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 2, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z659sISf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com
                  seth@gutridesafier.com
                  Kristen@gutridesafier.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  jkaliel@tzlegal.com


MEDPRO GROUP: Certification of Class Sought in "Carrel" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled GRETCHEN B. CARREL, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated v. MEDPRO GROUP, INC.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00130-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), asks the Court to
certify the class defined as:

     all persons who resigned from MedPro between March 30, 2014
     and June 21, 2016, who had unused MedPro between March 30,
     2014 and who had unused paid time off ("PTO") for which they
     were not paid upon resignation.

Ms. Carrel also asks that MedPro provide full contact information
of each class member, within five business days of the Court
entering order.  She further asks that the Court authorize
issuance of class action notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=reA8nUC0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Elliott, Esq.
          BECKMAN LAWSON, LLP
          201 West Wayne Street,
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802
          Telephone: (260) 422-0800
          Facsimile: (260) 420-1013
          E-mail: mje@beckmanlawson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward E. Hollis, Esq.
          Toni M. Everton, Esq.
          Rozlyn M. Fulgoni-Britton, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 237-1185
          Facsimile: (317) 237-8485
          E-mail: Edward.Hollis@faegrebd.com
                  Toni.Everton@faegrebd.com
                  Rozlyn.Fulgoni-Britton@faegrebd.com


MENTOR GRAPHICS: MOU Reached in Siemens Merger Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mentor Graphics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the parties
to the class action lawsuit have reached an agreement in principle
providing for the proposed settlement of the Action on the terms
and conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding (the
"MOU").

As disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement, a putative
stockholder class action complaint challenging the proposed
acquisition of the Company by Siemens pursuant to the Merger
Agreement was filed in the Circuit Court for the State of Oregon
for the County of Clackamas (the "Oregon Court") against the
Company, Merger Subsidiary, Parent, and the members of the Company
Board, captioned Scheiner v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, et al.,
Oregon Circuit Court Action No. 16CV42024 (the "Action"). The
complaint generally alleges that the merger consideration is
inadequate, that certain terms of the Merger Agreement are unfair,
that the individual defendants are financially interested in the
merger, and that the preliminary proxy statement is materially
incomplete and misleading. The Action seeks to enjoin the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, as well as
recover unspecified money damages in the event an injunction is
not granted, and an award of costs and attorneys' and experts'
fees. On January 2, 2017, defendants were served with the
complaint.

On January 26, 2017, the parties to the Action reached an
agreement in principle providing for the proposed settlement of
the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in a memorandum
of understanding (the "MOU"). The MOU provides that, among other
things, the Company would make certain supplemental and amended
disclosures to those in the Definitive Proxy Statement, which are
included in this supplement. The MOU also provides that the Action
will be dismissed and that plaintiffs will release as to the
defendants in the Action and the Company's financial advisor all
claims relating to, among other things, the Merger and Merger
Agreement. The proposed settlement in the MOU is subject to
confirmatory discovery, which is ongoing, and approval of the
Oregon Court. There can be no assurance that the settlement will
be finalized or that the Oregon Court will approve the proposed
settlement.

The Company and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue vigorously to deny, that they have committed or aided and
abetted in the commission of any violation of law or duties or
engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been
alleged in the Action, and expressly maintain that, to the extent
applicable, they diligently and scrupulously complied with any
applicable fiduciary and other legal duties and are entering into
the proposed settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense
of further litigation, to put the claims that were or could have
been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay to the
closing of the Merger that might arise from further litigation.
Nothing in this supplement, the MOU or any settlement
documentation or filings in the Oregon Court shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein.

The proposed settlement will not affect the timing of the Special
Meeting or the amount of merger consideration to be paid to the
Company shareholders in connection with the proposed merger.


MERITOR INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit remains
pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended January 1, 2017.

In March 2016, the company was served with a complaint filed
against the company and other defendants in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The complaint
is a proposed class action and alleges that the company violated
federal and state antitrust and other laws in connection with a
former business of the company that manufactured and sold exhaust
systems for automobiles. The alleged class is comprised of persons
and entities that purchased or leased a passenger vehicle during a
specified time period.

In April 2016, the company was served with a virtually identical
suit also naming the company as a defendant on behalf of a
purported class of automobile dealers.

In September 2016, the company filed a motion to dismiss.  The
company intends to defend itself vigorously against these claims.

The company believes at this time that liabilities associated with
this case, while possible, are not probable and estimable, and
therefore has not recorded any accrual for them as of December 31,
2016. Further, a reasonably possible range of loss cannot be
estimated at this time.

Meritor, Inc., headquartered in Troy, Michigan, is a premier
global supplier of a broad range of integrated systems, modules
and components to original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") and
the aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and
industrial sectors. The company serves commercial truck, trailer,
military, bus and coach, construction and other industrial OEMs
and certain aftermarkets. The condensed consolidated financial
statements are those of the company and its consolidated
subsidiaries.


MICHIGAN: Court Nixes Proposed Suit Over Drinking Water Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez at Law360 reports that a Michigan federal
judge tossed a proposed civil rights class action against Michigan
Gov. Rick Snyder, the state, the city of Flint and other public
officials on February 2 over their alleged roles in a lead-tainted
drinking water crisis that struck the town, finding the suit's
claims are preempted by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

Plaintiff Melissa Mays had asserted five claims against Snyder and
others under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, which
authorizes private parties to enforce their federal constitutional
rights and some federal statutory rights against municipalities
and state and local officials. The claims centered around the
violation of the due process provisions of the Fourteenth
Amendment, race- and wealth-based equal protection violations of
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The lawsuit grew out of a public health crisis precipitated by a
decision by Flint emergency managers, appointed by Snyder to
assist the financially struggling city, to switch drinking water
sources in an effort to save money. The city ended up getting
water from the Flint River instead of Lake Huron but failed to
properly treat it. The corrosive water scratched lead pipes along
its way into residents' homes, poisoning many of them, including
children.

But U.S. District Judge John Corbett O'Meara said Snyder and the
other defendants can't be held liable under the civil rights
claims because the SDWA preempts them.

"The essence of plaintiffs' constitutional claims is that
plaintiffs were injured as a result of exposure to contaminated
water. Plaintiffs' allegations are addressed by regulations that
have been promulgated by the EPA under the SDWA," Judge O'Meara
said. "Indeed, the safety of public water systems is a field
occupied by the SDWA. Accordingly ... the court concludes that
plaintiffs' federal remedy is under the SDWA, regardless of how
their legal theories are characterized in the complaint."

The judge relied on his April 2016 findings in a separate case
involving Flint water contamination, where he also concluded that
the plaintiffs' constitutional claims under Section 1983 were
precluded by the SDWA.

Judge O'Meara cited the First Circuit's 1992 opinion in Matoon v.
Pittsfield, which held that found that the Safe Drinking Water Act
precluded other federal remedies for unsafe public drinking water.
He said the Matoon court determined that the plaintiffs' Section
1983 claims were precluded by the SDWA.

"The [Matoon] court noted the 'elaborate enforcement scheme' set
forth in the SDWA, including that the EPA administrator may bring
a civil action to compel SDWA compliance and may issue compliance
orders against violators of SDWA regulations," Judge O'Meara said.

In her complaint, Mays had also asserted one claim under the
Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, but the judge declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction, saying "if the federal claims
are dismissed before trial ... the state claims should be
dismissed as well."

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul F. Novak --
pnovak@milberg.com -- and Gregory Stamatopoulos --
gstamatopoulos@milberg.com -- of Milberg LLP, Michael L. Pitt,
Cary S. McGehee, and Beth M. Rivers of Pitt McGehee Palmer &
Rivers PC, William Goodman and Julie H. Hurwitz of Goodman &
Hurwitz PC, Trachelle C. Young of Trachelle C. Young & Associates
PLLC, Robin L. Greenwald and John M. Broaddus -- info@weitzlux.com
-- of Weitz & Luxenberg PC and Deborah A. LaBelle of the Law
Offices of Deborah A. LaBelle.

The state defendants are represented by Eugene Driker --
edriker@bsdd.com --, Morley Witus -- mwitus@bsdd.com --, and Todd
R. Mendel -- tmendel@bsdd.com -- of Barris Sott Denn & Driker PLLC
and Richard S. Kuhl, Margaret A. Bettenhausen, Nathan A. Gambill,
and Zachary Larsen of the Michigan attorney general's office.

The case is Mays et al v. Snyder et al, case number 5:15-cv-14002,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.


MICROSOFT CORP: 6-Month Oral Hearing to Commence September 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that a six-month oral
hearing is scheduled to commence in September 2017 in the
Antitrust, Unfair Competition, and Overcharge Class Actions.

Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed
against us in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada. All
three have been certified on behalf of Canadian indirect
purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating system
software and/or productivity application software between 1998 and
2010.

The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016.
The plaintiffs filed their case in chief in August 2016, setting
out claims made, authorities, and evidence in support of their
claims. A six-month oral hearing is scheduled to commence in
September 2017, consisting of cross examination on witness
affidavits. The Ontario and Quebec cases are inactive.


MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Remains Dormant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that litigation in the
Canadian cell phone class action has been dormant for more than
two years.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network
operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of
Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours,
including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was
served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted
for the Nokia defendants. The litigation has been dormant for more
than two years.


MID-ATLANTIC LUBES: Files Joint Memorandum in "Hoover" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit entitled DAVID Hoover, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MID-ATLANTIC
LUBES, INC. t/a JIFFY LUBE and MARK I RHEE, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00064-PD (E.D. Pa.), submit a joint memorandum in response to the
Court's order dated January 12, 2017, directing the Parties to
provide a memorandum of law in support of their motion for
conditional certification and for preliminary approval of their
settlement.

The Court has also requested that the Parties submit clarification
concerning certain terms of the settlement.

The Parties jointly seek conditional certification of a collective
action encompassing all employees of Mid-Atlantic, who worked at
its Warminster, Pennsylvania facility during the two-year period
prior to the filing of the complaint and held the position of
Customer Service Technician or Assistant Manager.

The Parties submit that the terms of the settlement are fair and
reasonable because, among other things, each claimant will be paid
for each hour of work for which he or she was not compensated
based upon counsel's mutual review of the relevant records.  In
addition, each claimant, who is determined to be entitled to
additional compensation will be compensated based on the overtime
hourly rate applicable to that claimant without the claimant
having to establish that he or she worked more than 40 hours in
any given week.

Under the Parties' Memorandum of Understanding, incorporated by
reference in the Settlement Agreement, opt-in plaintiffs, who are
owed additional compensation are to be paid for their unpaid hours
at a rate of 1.5 times their respective hourly rates, the same
methodology used to establish the amount ($1,800) designated for
Mr. Hoover.  Thus, Mr. Hoover does not receive preferential
treatment in terms of how the amounts of unpaid compensation are
determined.

The Parties further submit that the $6,000 participation award to
Mr. Hoover is reasonable.  They argue that there is no unfairness
to any opt-in plaintiff as a result of the participant award of
$6,000 because each claimant, who is entitled to participate in
the settlement will be paid the full amount of his or her claim
for unpaid compensation without any discount for the risk of not
establishing the merits of his or her claim.

Finally, apart from Mr. Hoover's significant involvement in the
litigation, he has provided Mid-Atlantic with additional
consideration in exchange for the participation award, the Parties
further assert.  They add that the Settlement Agreement contains a
stipulation that Mr. Hoover will not seek employment with Mid-
Atlantic in the future.

A copy of the Joint Memorandum is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fZ4f4VL9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Meyer, Esq.
          Jerry R. DeSiderato, Esq.
          DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
          1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 575-7283
          Facsimile: (215) 575-7200
          E-mail: emeyer@dilworthlaw.com
                  jdesiderato@dilworthlaw.com

               - and -

          Evan Barenbaum, Esq.
          STERN & EISENBERG, P.C.
          1581 Main Street, Suite 200
          Warrington, PA 18976-3400
          Telephone: (215) 572-8111
          Facsimile: (215) 572-5025
          E-mail: ebarenbaum@sterneisenberg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John C. Romeo, Esq.
          Jennifer Seme, Esq.
          GIBBONS PC
          One Logan Square, Suite 1210
          130 North 18th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 446-6223
          E-mail: jromeo@gibbonslaw.com
                  jseme@gibbonslaw.com


NATIONAL RECOVERY: Faces "Khaimov" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Recovery
Agency, Inc. The case is captioned as Peter Khaimov, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. National Recovery Agency, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00535 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2017).

National Recovery offers revenue recovery services and collects
past dues.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NATUS MEDICAL: March 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, the former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., reminds investors that
they have until March 31, 2017 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Natus Medical
Incorporated (Nasdaq:BABY), if they purchased the Company's shares
between October 16, 2015 and April 3, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The action is pending in United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Natus and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF
Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com). If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by March 31, 2017.

                        About the Lawsuit

Natus and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) the Venezuelan government had
not made tens of millions of dollars in prepayments to Natus under
their three-year supply contract ("Supply Contract"); (ii) Natus
had no means to effectively enforce the Supply Contract, as
Venezuela was the exclusive forum for dispute resolution; (iii)
Natus's receipt of revenues under the Supply Contract was
contingent on the Venezuelan elections; and (iv) accordingly,
Natus was not on track to achieve the increased guidance it
provided and such guidance lacked a reasonable basis.

                      About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices
in New York, California and Louisiana.


NAVIENT CORP: "Poterek" Suit Alleges Unfair Pre-payment Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL J. POTEREK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION and
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60145-JAL
(S.D. Fla., January 20, 2017), alleges that Defendants have
created a system, implemented practices, and designed policies to
apply student loan debtors' intentional, partial pre-payments in a
way most beneficial to themselves -- against future interest
payments and purported fees, rather than the reduction of a
student loan's outstanding principal balance.

NAVIENT CORPORATION is a student loan servicer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel J. Poterek, Esq.
     Marc A. Burton, Esq.
     Richard J. Burton, Esq.
     THE BURTON FIRM, P.A.
     2999 N.E. 191 Street, Suite 805
     Miami, FL 33180
     Phone: 305-705-0888
     Fax: 305-705-0008
     E-mail: pleadings@theburtonfirm.com
             dpoterek@theburtonfirm.com


NBTY INC: Sweat Must File Bid to Certify by March 17, Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Marcia Morales Howard directed the Plaintiff in the
lawsuit captioned JENNIFER SWEAT v. NBTY, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-
00940-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla.), to file a motion for class
certification no later than March 17, 2017.

The Clerk's Minutes also states that:

   -- the Court discussed with counsel the issues involved in the
      parties' case management report;

   -- the Plaintiff's third motion to certify class and for leave
      to supplement after discovery is withdrawn; and

   -- the Defendant must file a response to the motion for class
      certification no later than 45 days after the motion for
      class certification is filed.

A copy of the Clerk's Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qoTRyrNr

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Norris, Esq.
          DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
          The Bradshaw House
          2154 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 930-9900
          Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
          E-mail: jnorris@davisnorris.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eskandar Alex Beroukhim, Esq.
          James Speyer, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER, LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
          Telephone: (213) 243-4000
          Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
          E-mail: alex_beroukhim@aporter.com
                  james.speyer@aporter.com

               - and -

          Dana G. Bradford, II, Esq.
          James Harvey Cummings, Esq.
          SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
          Bank of America Tower
          50 N. Laura Street, Suite 2600
          Jacksonville, FL 32202 USA
          Telephone: (904) 598-6103
          Facsimile: (904) 598-6203
          E-mail: dgbradford@sgrlaw.com
                  jcummings@sgrlaw.com


NITRO FLUIDS: Court Certifies Class of Helpers in "Ochoa" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Janis Graham Jack entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned JOSHUA OCHOA, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NITRO FLUIDS, LLC, BOBBY LEE KORICANEK and
JACKIE R. SIMPSON, JR., Case No. 2:16-cv-00380 (S.D. Tex.),
granting the parties agreed conditional certification and sending
of notice to putative class members.

The Court conditionally certifies a putative class of "All Helpers
who worked for Nitro Fluids, LLC, Bobby Lee Koricanek and Jackie
R. Simpson, Jr., at any time from January 20, 2014 until December
31, 2015 and were paid hourly plus overtime but whose job and/or
safety bonuses were not included in the calculation of the
overtime rate."

The Putative Class does not include any current or former Helper
who worked for the Defendants and previously settled their claims
for unpaid overtime in the case styled Ryan Sheard et al v. Nitro
Fluids, LLC et al, C.A. No. 2:15-cv-323 (S.D. Tex.) (Tagle, J.).
This case was closed on August 26, 2016.

The Defendants will provide the names, addresses, and e-mail
addresses (if known) for the Putative Class Members, who worked
for the Defendants, at any time from ________, 2014 until December
31, 2015 no later than 14 days following the Court's granting of
the Order for Conditional Certification.

The Court also approved the Parties' Notice and Consent form and
notice procedure.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Pziaep0w


NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Barouk" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group Inc.
The case is captioned as Shterna Barouk, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Northland Group Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00565
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2017).

Northland Group provides accounts receivable management and
collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers, and
student loan lenders.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


OCHSNER HEALTH: "Bergeron" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Desiree Bergeron, Lillian Fogarty, Patricia Gremillion, Natalie
Illg, Michele Kraft, Kevin Millet and Elizabeth Nelson behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Ochsner Health System and Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00519, (E.D. La., January 23, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act as well as damages resulting from breach
of contract, detrimental reliance and unjust enrichment and for
violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiffs are current certified registered nurse anesthetists,
working at various Ochsner locations.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth C. Bordes, Esq.
      ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
      4224 Canal St.
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Tel: (504) 588-2700
      Fax: (504) 708-1717
      Email: kcb@kennethbordes.com


OSCAR GOCHEZ: Faces "Gonsalez" Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oscar Gochez DDS A
Professional Dental Corp. The case is entitled as Liana Gonzalez,
On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Oscar Gochez DDS A Professional Dental Corp., A
California Corporation dba Dentistry 4-Kids; Cpe Hr, Inc., A
California Corporation; and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC648729 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 31, 2017).

Oscar Gochez is a dental care provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PERMANENTE MEDICAL: Court Granted Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vince Chhabria entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
DEBRA BROWN, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-05272-VC (N.D. Cal.),
granting conditional certification for the purposes of providing
notice of the case to the potential members of the collective
action.

The Court said, "Permanente also points to some uncertainty in the
plaintiffs' depositions about practices at the Vallejo and
Sacramento call centers. It would have been helpful to have
declarations from nurses at the Vallejo and Sacramento call
centers in support of this motion. But the inability of the
plaintiffs to remember who they talked with from the other call
centers is not enough to show that they are unaware of the
practices at those call centers. Nor do the limited differences in
practices among call centers suggested in the Nursing Quality
Forum notes show that the Advice Nurses are dissimilarly situated
for the purposes of conditionally certifying a collective.
Finally, Permanente's request to exclude Morton and Labuszewski as
representatives of the FLSA collective is denied. Permanente
argues that Morton and Labuszewski worked part time, and only
Brown worked full time. Permanente's classification of employees
as full time or part time is not dispositive of the FLSA claims.
The question is the hours that the plaintiffs actually worked. All
of the plaintiffs said in their declarations that Permanente did
not fully compensate them for working more than eight hours in a
day or forty hours in a week during some weeks".

The Court further entered an order:

   1. requiring effective notice reaching members of the
      collective. Permanente shall therefore provide a list of
      all potential members of the collective within fourteen
      days of this order, in the form requested by the
      plaintiffs;

   2. directing opt-in period shall be sixty days from when the
      approved notice is sent to the collective;

   3. directing notice may include the case caption, since it is
      followed by a statement of judicial neutrality. The
      statement of judicial neutrality should be in bold font.

   4. directing notice need not include a detailed statement of
      Permanente's defenses, though it must include the statement
      that Permanente denies all liability.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=R8qofGWN


PROACTIVE PARTNERS: "Armstrong-Head" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor Armstrong-Head, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. ProActive Partners Inc., Maxine
Vigil Russell and Lawrence Edward Russell, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00207, (N.D. Tex., January 23, 2017), seeks unpaid wages,
including all unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as Nurse Case Managers,
providing field and telephonic case management for work-related
injuries. They regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek,
but were not paid for all hours, including overtime pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason E. Winford, Esq.
      David Watkins, Esq.
      JENKINS & WATKINS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      4300 MacArthur Avenue, Suite 165
      Dallas, TX 75209
      Tel: (214) 378-6675
      Fax: (214) 378-6680
      Email: jwinford@jenkinswatkins.com
             dwatkins@jenkinswatkins.com


QED ENVIRONMENTAL: Class Certification Sought in "Johnson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled TERRILL JOHNSON, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff,
v. QED ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS INC., et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-01454-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on March 15, 2017 at 2:00 pm for conditional collective
action Certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) on behalf of:

   "all non-exempt employees employed by Defendant QED
   Environmental Systems, Inc., (Defendant) throughout the United
   States who had 30 minutes deducted from their pay whether or
   not they took a full 30 minute meal break at any time from
   March 8, 2013 to the present (the "Collective Action Period").

According to the lawsuit, the Defendant has an alleged practice of
automatically deducting 30 minutes from the pay check of employees
for a meal break whether or not the employee actually took a full
30 minute meal break. As a result, contrary to federal law
employees are not compensated when they end up working during
their meal break. This practice is expressly alleged in the
operative complaint, and is supported by the deposition testimony
of Plaintiff Terrill Johnson and documentary evidence. Defendant
does not dispute that this practice occurs, but has refused to
produce an FRCP 30(b)(6) deponent to testify about it.  The
Defendant has filed a motion for Rule 11 Sanctions and a motion to
deny class certification but neither filing even addresses these
allegations, the Plaintiff asserts.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=X53CvtBG

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Appeal in Securities Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a class
action appeal remains pending.

The Company said, "On November 19, 2013, a putative class action
complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of our Company
other than the defendants against us and certain of our officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California by one of our shareholders. After the Court
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and
recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint, which
is substantially similar to the litigation described above under
the caption "Hussein Litigation," generally alleges that
statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial
condition and projected future performance were false and
misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that
the individual defendants are liable for such statements because
they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and
attorneys' fees."

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20,
2014, which the Court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the
complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order, which the Court denied on
January 5, 2015.

"On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In
re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173.
Plaintiffs filed their opening brief and we answered. Oral
argument was held on December 5, 2016. The Court's decision
remains pending.

"We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
continue to defend against them vigorously. At this time, we are
unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if
any, related to this claim."


RENT-A-CENTER INC: February 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of Rent-A-Center, Inc. securities from July 27, 2015
through October 10, 2016, inclusive of the important February 21,
2017 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Rent-A-Center investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Rent-A-Center class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1017.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for
information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Rent-A-Center could not
properly implement its new point of sale system ("POS"); (2) the
POS was performing extremely poorly, including several complete
outages; (3) as a result, Rent-A-Center's Acceptance Now credit
system could not be implemented properly; (4) Rent-A-Center could
not meet revenue and profitability guidance provided to investors;
(5) as such, Rent-A-Center would need to revise its prior
guidance; and (6) as a result, Defendants' statements about Rent-
A-Center's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
February 21, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1017.htmlor to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.
Attorney Advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


RESTORATION HARDWARE: April 3 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP has filed a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of City of Miami General Employees'
& Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust against RH -- until
recently known as Restoration Hardware and certain of its senior
executives.  The action, which is captioned City of Miami General
Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust v. RH, Inc.,
No. 3:17-cv-00554 (N.D. Cal.) asserts claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in RH common stock
during the time period of March 26, 2015 to June 8, 2016,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, RH reported
false and misleading earnings forecasts based on its new product
line, RH Modern.  The Complaint also alleges that RH
misrepresented and concealed the problems surrounding the launch
of RH Modern including inventory shortages, shipping delays, and
poor construction quality.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from today.
Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion for appointment as
Lead Plaintiff is April 3, 2017.  Any member of the proposed Class
may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of
the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com.

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G has built an international
reputation for excellence and integrity.  Specializing in
securities fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights,
employment discrimination, and civil rights litigation, among
other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions
on behalf of institutional and individual clients worldwide.
Unique among its peers, BLB&G has obtained several of the largest
and most significant securities recoveries in history, recovering
billions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors.  More
information about BLB&G can be found online at www.blbglaw.com.


RFI CONSTRUCTION: Luna-Reyes May Amend Complaint, Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas D. Schroeder entered an order in the lawsuit
titled JOAQUIN LUNA-REYES, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. RFI CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-00235-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.):

   -- granting Plaintiff Joaquin Luna-Reyes's motion for leave to
      file a third amended complaint;

   -- denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to
      conditionally certify as a collective action and class
      action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and North
      Carolina Wage and Hour Act and to appoint class counsel,
      insofar as the proposed third amended complaint seeks to
      add new parties; and

   -- denying as moot Metcon, Inc. and H.J. Russell & Co.'s
      motion to intervene.

The United States Magistrate Judge shall enter all appropriate
orders and revisions to the current case management order as
appropriate for the efficient management of the case, according to
the Order.

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


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: April 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C., disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
in United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. securities between May 8,
2014 and January 30, 2017, inclusive.

Roadrunner shareholders may, no later than April 3, 2017, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you
purchased shares of Roadrunner and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to
sign up online, visit: www.maniskas.com.

The complaint charges Roadrunner and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Roadrunner provides asset-light transportation and logistics
services provider that purports to offer a comprehensive suite of
global supply chain solutions, including truckload logistics,
customized and expedited less-than-truckload, intermodal
solutions, freight consolidation, inventory management, expedited
services, air freight, international freight forwarding, customs
brokerage, and transportation management solutions.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose the
following: (i) the Company's Morgan Southern and Bruenger
subsidiaries had engaged in improper accounting practices; (ii)
Roadrunner lacked effective internal controls; (iii) as a result,
Roadrunner overstated its earnings throughout the Class Period by
tens of millions of dollars; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, Roadrunner's financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 30, 2017, post-market, Roadrunner announced that in
November 2016, the Company "was made aware of various potential
accounting discrepancies at its Morgan Southern and Bruenger
operating subsidiaries" and commenced an investigation with the
assistance of outside counsel. While the investigation remains
ongoing, Roadrunner advised investors that the Company "currently
estimates it will require prior period adjustments to Roadrunner's
results of operations of between $20 million and $25 million" in
the Company's annual and quarterly financial reporting for the
years 2014, 2015, and 2016. Roadrunner advised investors that the
errors "principally relate to unrecorded expenses from
unreconciled balance sheet accounts including cash, driver and
other receivables, and linehaul and other driver payables," and
that the Company is reassessing its internal controls over
financial reporting and its compliance programs.

On this news, Roadrunner's share price fell $3.62, or 31.37%, to
close at $7.92 on January 31, 2017.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than April 3,
2017, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or
other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this
action.

RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and
federal courts nationwide.


RT MIDWEST: Bernal Moves for Class Certification Under WARN Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Jose Rafael Bernal, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. RT Midwest
Holdings, LLC, RT Chicago Franchise, LLC and RT Northern Illinois
Franchise, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00412 (N.D. Ill.), moves to
certify a class of all persons employed by Defendants at Ruby
Tuesday restaurants in Illinois and who lost their employment on
or about July 29, 2016, without the 60-day notice required by the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Geoghegan, Esq.
          Michael P. Persoon, Esq.
          Sean Morales-Doyle, Esq.
          DESPRES, SCHWARTZ & GEOGHEGAN, LTD.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 711
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-2511
          E-mail: TGeoghegan@DSGChicago.com
                  MPersoon@DSGChicago.com
                  SMoralesDoyle@DSGChicago.com


SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Suit Over Disclosure of Farmers Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc., along with its subsidiaries Sanderson
Farms, Inc., Sanderson Farms, Inc., and Sanderson Farms, Inc.,
were named as defendants along with four other poultry producers
and certain of their affiliated companies in a putative class
action lawsuit filed on January 27, 2017 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, according to
the Company's regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated February 2, 2017.

The complaint alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired by
sharing data on compensation paid to broiler farmers, with the
purpose and effect of suppressing the farmers' compensation below
competitive levels. The complaint also alleges that the defendants
unlawfully conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers
who were providing services to other defendants. The complaint
seeks treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The lawsuit is in
its early stages and the Registrant intends to defend it
vigorously.


SCHWABE NORTH AMERICA: Class Cert. Bid in "Sonner" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Virginia A. Phillips entered an order in the lawsuit
titled Kathleen Sonner, the Plaintiff, v. Schwabe North America,
Inc. et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-01358-VAP-SP (C.D.
Cal.), granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and
denying plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff initiated the action against Defendants on July 7,
2015. The Defendant Schwabe North America, Inc., markets and
distributes Ginkgold Advanced Ginkgo Extract (Ginkgold) and
Ginkgold Max Advanced Ginkgo Extract Max 120 mg (Ginkgold Max). In
her operative complaint, Plaintiff alleges a variety of claims
against Defendants on behalf of herself and a class of:

   "persons who purchased [Defendants' products] Ginkgold or
    Ginkgold Max in the United States".

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts four claims for relief against
Defendants: (1) violation of the Wisconsin Unfair Trade Practices
(2) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code section 17200, et seq. ("UCL"); (3) violation of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code section
1750, et seq. ("CLRA"); and (4) breach of express warranty.

The Court said, "Plaintiff never purchased Ginkgold Max.
Defendants argue that, as Plaintiff never purchased or used
Ginkgold Max, she cannot allege she was misled by the Ginkgold Max
label or that Ginkgold Max caused her any injury. Hence,
Defendants contend that Plaintiff lacks both Article III and
statutory standing as to any claims related to Ginkgold Max.
"[A] Plaintiff may have standing to assert claims for unnamed
class members based on products he or she did not purchase so long
as the products and alleged misrepresentations are substantially
similar." Brown v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 881,
890 (N.D. Cal. 2012); see also Astiana v. Dreyer's Grand Ice
Cream, Inc., No. C-11-2910, 2012 WL 2990766, at 11 (N.D. Cal. July
20, 2012) (noting that, in cases
that decide whether individual plaintiffs have standing to
represent purchasers of other products, "the critical inquiry
seems to be whether there is sufficient similarity between
the products purchased and not purchased"); Dysthe v. Basic
Research LLC, No. 09-8013, 2011 WL 5868307 (C.D. Cal. June 13,
2011) (holding that a plaintiff did not have standing over claims
related to a product she did not purchase because "[h]aving a few
common ingredients is simply not enough to show the Products are
the same or even 'nearly identical'").

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Us8jvAqQ


SCION DENTAL: Orrington Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAMES L ORRINGTON, II, D.D.S., P.C., on
behalf of plaintiff and the class members, the Plaintiff,
v. SCION DENTAL, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00884 (N.D. Ill.), Mr. Orrington moves the Court to
enter an order to certify these classes:

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act:

   (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior
   to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. section 1658), (c)
   were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Scion Dental,
   Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did
   not contain a compliant opt out notice. By "compliant opt out
   notice" is meant one (i) on the first page of the fax (ii)
   that states that the recipient may make a request to the
   sender not to send any future unsolicited advertisements to a
   telephone facsimile machine (iii) that states that failure to
   comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by
   the Federal Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that
   provides instructions on how to submit an opt out request and
   (v) that includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile
   machine number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to
   transmit such a request to the sender that permit a request to
   be made at any time on any day of the week";

For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2:

   "(a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior
   to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. section 1658), (c)
   were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Scion Dental,
   Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did
   not contain a compliant opt out notice"; and

For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion and Count IV,
alleging trespass to chattels:

   "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
   after a date five years prior to the filing of this action,
   (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Scion Dental,
   Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did
   not contain a compliant opt out notice. Plaintiff contends
   that the fax at issue does not even attempt to provide a
   compliant opt out notice".

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Dulijaza Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Defending Class Suit in Orange County
-------------------------------------------------------
SIFCO Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 24, 2016, that the Company is
currently a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Orange, alleging
violations of California wage-and-hour laws, rules and regulations
pertaining primarily to failure to accurately calculate and pay
hourly and overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods;
failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to indemnify
necessary expenditures; failure to timely pay wages; and unfair
competition.

Although the Company records reserves for legal disputes and other
matters in accordance with GAAP, the ultimate outcomes of these
types of matters are inherently uncertain. Actual results may
differ significantly from current estimates. Given the current
status of this matter, Company has not concluded that a loss is
probable, as such an estimate of a loss has not been recorded.


STAR GAS: Motion to Dismiss "Donnenfeld" Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Star Gas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the
Partnership's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit has been
fully briefed and no decision has been issued yet.

On February 18, 2016, a civil action was filed in the United
States District Court, District of New Jersey, entitled M. Norman
Donnenfeld v. Petro Home Services, Petro Holdings Inc. and Petro,
Inc., Civil Action Number 2:16-cv-00882 JMV-JBC, against Petro
Home Services which is a brand name, Petro Holdings Inc. and
Petro, Inc. Plaintiff alleges he did not receive expected
contractual benefits under his protected price plan contract when
oil prices fell and asserts various claims for relief including
breach of contract, violation of the New York General Business Law
and fraud. The Plaintiff also seeks to have a class certified of
all customers of the defendants in the United States who entered
into protected price plan contracts and were denied the same
contractual benefits and to be appointed to represent them. No
class has yet been certified in this action. The Plaintiff seeks
compensatory, punitive and other damages in unspecified amounts.

On May 9, 2016, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a
claim for relief and to strike the class action allegations. The
motion was fully briefed and submitted to the court on July 12,
2016 and no decision has been issued yet. The Partnership believes
the allegations lack merit and intends to vigorously defend the
action; at this time the Company cannot assess the potential
outcome or materiality of this matter.


STATE COLLECTION: Status Hearing in "Studebaker" Set for March 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert M. Dow Jr. entered order in the lawsuit captioned
Angel Studebaker, Plaintiff, v. State Collection Service, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00841 (N.D. Ill.), granting
Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 2,
2017, Plaintiff's motion to certify class is entered and continued
generally. Notice of motion date of February 9, 2017 is stricken
and no appearances are necessary on that date. Initial status
hearing is set for March 30, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. and parties are to
report the following:

     (1) Possibility of settlement in the case;

     (2) If no possibility of settlement exists, the nature
         and length of discovery necessary to get the case ready
         for trial.

Plaintiff is to advise all other parties of the Court's action.
Lead counsel is directed to appear at this status hearing. The
parties are requested to file a joint status report at least two
days prior to the initial status.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=y2M4KN4k


STS CONSULTING: Class of Field Workers Certified in "Lopez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert W. Schroeder III adopts the report and
recommendation entered by the United States Magistrate Judge John
D. Love in the lawsuit titled JEREMY LOPEZ, individually and on
Behalf of all persons similarly situated v. STS CONSULTING
SERVICE, LLC, Case No. 6:16-cv-00246-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex.).

On November 22, 2016, Judge Love filed a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the Court certify the collective action.  No
objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.  The
Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of a class of employees
in the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

After reviewing Plaintiff's Motion, its supporting documents, and
the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions, the Court adopts
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the findings
and conclusions of the Court.  Hence, the Plaintiff's Motion is
granted-in-part.  The class is consists of:

     All current and former employees of STS Consulting Services,
     LLC ("STS") who performed field work within the inspection
     sector of STS in the United States, and who were paid in
     whole or in part, on a "day rate basis" in any workweek
     between three years prior to the date of the Court's Order
     and the present (the "FLSA Collective").

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SGj5jtpy


T & S WHOLESALE: Faces "Vazquez" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T & S Wholesale Dry
Cleaning Inc. The case is captioned as Camerina Cuautle Vazquez
and Gregorio Meyo, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. T & S Wholesale Dry
Cleaning Inc., doing business as Wholesale Cleaners, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00531 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2017).

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Consolidated Complaint Filed in MDL
-----------------------------------------------------
TerraForm Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs have
filed the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the Multidistrict
Litigation.

On July 27, 2016, lead plaintiff Municipal Employees' Retirement
System of Michigan in the Horowitz et. al v. SunEdison, Inc. et
al. action (E.D. Mo.) moved to transfer various actions pending in
federal district courts to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") for consolidated or
coordinated pretrial proceedings before the Multidistrict
Litigation Panel.

On October 4, 2016, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel issued an
order transferring the following cases to the SDNY for
consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings:

   * Fraser v. Wuebbels et al.
   * Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. TerraForm Global,
     Inc. et al.
   * Badri v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al.
   * Patel v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al.
   * Pyramid Holdings, Inc. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al.
   * Beltran v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al.
   * Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v.
     SunEdison, Inc. et al.
   * Glenview Capital Partners, L.P. et al. v. SunEdison, Inc.
     et al.
   * Omega Capital Investors et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al.

Four of these actions, Fraser v. Wuebbels et al., Iron Workers
Mid-South Pension Fund v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., Badri v.
TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., and Patel v. TerraForm Global, Inc.
et al., were initially filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo on October 23, 2015,
December 3, 2015, December 9, 2015 and January 4, 2016,
respectively. These four separate purported class actions were
filed against the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
each of the underwriters of the Company's IPO, and SunEdison.

A separate class action, Agrawal v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al.,
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Mateo on October 30, 2015. This action was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in February 2016.

Additionally, two separate purported class action lawsuits,
Beltran v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. and Pyramid Holdings,
Inc. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., were filed on October 29,
2015 and November 5, 2015, respectively, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the same
defendants. The class action plaintiffs assert claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"). The class action complaints
allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and
materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information in the Company's registration statement for the IPO
regarding SunEdison and its recent operating results and business
strategy. Among other relief, the class action complaints seek
class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission,
attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should
deem just and proper.

On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison's voluntary petition for
bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants
removed the remaining state actions to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. On May 27, 2016, the
plaintiffs in the cases removed from state court filed motions to
remand.

On June 1, 2016, the defendants filed motions to transfer the
cases to the SDNY, the jurisdiction in which SunEdison's
bankruptcy is pending. The previous briefing schedule has been
vacated as a result of the October 4, 2016 transfer order issued
by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel.

On November 3, 2016, Plaintiff in Patel v. TerraForm Global, Inc.
et al. voluntarily dismissed the case.

On December 22, 2016, the court consolidated Pyramid Holdings,
Inc. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., Badri v. TerraForm Global,
Inc. et al., Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. TerraForm
Global, Inc. et al., and Fraser v. Wuebbels et al. as In re
TerraForm Global, Inc. and ordered the plaintiffs to file a
consolidated complaint.

On January 16, 2017, the plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.

On December 20, 2016, Plaintiff in Beltran v. TerraForm Global,
Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed the case.

The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the
allegations made in the remaining complaints and, as a result, is
unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these lawsuits or that an adverse resolution of these lawsuits
would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position and results of operations.

On March 29, 2016, plaintiff filed Oklahoma Firefighters Pension &
Retirement System v. SunEdison, Inc. et al., in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Mateo against the
Company, SunEdison, certain officers and directors of the Company
and SunEdison, and the underwriters of the Company's IPO. The
plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information in the
Company's registration statement for the IPO regarding SunEdison
and its recent operating results and business strategy. The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, rescission, and such other
relief (including equitable or injunctive relief) as the court may
deem just and proper.

On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison's voluntary petition for
bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants
removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. On May 27, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to
remand. On June 1, 2016, the defendants moved to transfer the case
to the SDNY, the jurisdiction in which SunEdison's bankruptcy is
pending.

The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the
allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable to
provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit
or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position and results of operations.

On March 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed Glenview Capital Partners,
L.P. et al. v. SunEdison, Inc. et al., in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Mateo against the
Company, SunEdison, certain officers and directors of the Company
and SunEdison, and the underwriters of the Company's August 5,
2015 bond offering and SunEdison's August 18, 2015 preferred stock
offering. The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, as well as the Maryland
Securities Act. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
they purchased securities pursuant to offering documents that
contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted other
material facts necessary to make the statements in the offering
documents not misleading. The complaint further alleges that these
false and misleading statements led to the forced conversion of
the plaintiffs' Class D securities into restricted common stock,
that the Company breached the June 9, 2015 Class D Purchase
Agreement between the Company and the plaintiffs, and that the
defendants made negligent misrepresentations in connection with
the Company's Class D registration statement. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, rescission, and such other relief (including
equitable or injunctive relief) as the court may deem just and
proper.

On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison's voluntary petition for
bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants
removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. On May 26, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand. On May 27, 2016, the defendants moved to
transfer the case to the SDNY, the jurisdiction in which
SunEdison's bankruptcy is pending. The Court held a hearing on the
motion to remand and the motion to transfer on August 18, 2016. On
August 26, 2016, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs'
motion to remand and granting the defendants' motion to transfer.
The Court also certified a legal issue for interlocutory review,
and on September 2, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a petition for
permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On November 17, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an order
requiring all parties to file statements addressing the effect of
the Multidistrict Litigation Panel's transfer order on the motion
for permission to appeal. On December 8, 2016, the parties filed
their responses.

The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the
allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable to
provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit
or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position and results of operations.

On March 30, 2016, plaintiffs filed Omega Capital Investors et al.
v. SunEdison, Inc. et al., in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo against the Company,
SunEdison, certain officers and directors of the Company and
SunEdison, and the underwriters of SunEdison's preferred stock
offering. The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, as well as the Maryland
Securities Act. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the defendants made false and misleading statements in connection
with the Company's IPO, and that these false and misleading
statements led to the forced conversion of their Class D
securities into restricted common stock. The complaint further
alleges that the Company breached the June 9, 2015 Class D
Purchase Agreement between the Company and the plaintiffs and made
negligent misrepresentations in connection with the Company's
Class D registration statement. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, rescission, and such other relief (including equitable or
injunctive relief) as the court may deem just and proper.

On April 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison's voluntary petition for
bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other defendants
removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. On May 26, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand. On June 1, 2016, the defendants moved to
transfer the case to the SDNY, the jurisdiction in which
SunEdison's bankruptcy is pending. The Court held a hearing on the
motion to remand and the motion to transfer on August 18, 2016. On
August 26, 2016, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs'
motion to remand and granting the defendants' motion to transfer.
The Court also certified a legal issue for interlocutory review,
and on September 2, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a petition for
permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On November 17, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an order requiring
all parties to file statements addressing the effect of the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel's transfer order on the motion for
permission to appeal. On December 8, 2016, the parties filed their
responses.

The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the
allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable to
provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit
or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position and results of operations.

TerraForm Global, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the "Company") is a
dividend growth-oriented company formed to own and operate
contracted clean power generation assets.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Court Requires MDL Parties to Mediate
-------------------------------------------------------
TerraForm Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a Court has entered an
order requiring all parties to the multidistrict litigation,
including the parties to the conditional transfer cases, to
mediate and entered a partial stay of all proceedings through
March 31, 2017.

On October 5, 2016, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel issued
conditional transfer orders in three cases, Kingdon Associates et
al. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al., VMT II LLC v. TerraForm
Global, Inc. et al., and Canyon Capital Advisors LLC et al. v.
TerraForm Global, Inc. et al.

On July 14, 2016, plaintiffs filed Kingdon Associates et al. v.
TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Mateo against the Company,
TerraForm Global, LLC, certain officers and directors of the
Company and SunEdison, and the underwriters of the Company's IPO.
The plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act, as well as state law claims for breach of
contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Maryland
securities laws. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and
failed to disclose material information in the Company's
registration statement for the IPO regarding SunEdison and its
recent operating results and business strategy and that these
false and misleading statements led to the forced conversion of
their Class D securities into restricted common stock. The
complaint further alleges that the Company breached the June 9,
2015 Class D Purchase Agreement between the Company and the
plaintiffs and made negligent misrepresentations in connection
with the Company's Class D registration statement. The complaint
seeks compensatory damages, rescission, and such other relief
(including equitable or injunctive relief) as the court may deem
just and proper.

On September 26, 2016, in light of SunEdison's voluntary petition
for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other
defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. Plaintiffs did not oppose the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel's conditional transfer order.

The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the
allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable to
provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit
or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position and results of operations.

On August 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed Canyon Capital Advisors LLC et
al. v. TerraForm Global, Inc. et al. in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Mateo against the
Company, certain officers and directors of the Company and
SunEdison, and the underwriters of the Company's IPO and
SunEdison's August 18, 2015 preferred stock offering. The
plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act, as well as the California Corporate Securities
Law. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they
purchased securities pursuant to offering documents that contained
untrue statements of material fact and omitted other material
facts necessary to make the statements in the offering documents
not misleading. The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
rescission, and such other relief (including equitable or
injunctive relief) as the court may deem just and proper.

On September 8, 2016, in light of SunEdison's voluntary petition
for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other
defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. On September 26, 2016, plaintiffs
filed a motion to remand. On October 6, 2016, plaintiffs filed an
amended motion to remand. On October 20, 2016, defendants filed
their opposition to that motion, and on November 2, 2016,
plaintiffs filed their reply. On October 19, 2016, defendants
filed a motion to stay the case until a final transfer
determination is made by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel.

On November 2, 2016, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion
to stay. The Court held a hearing on the motion to remand and the
motion to stay on November 10, 2016.

On October 26, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
conditional transfer order. On November 16, 2016, defendants filed
an opposition to the motion to vacate. On November 17, 2016, the
parties filed a stipulation withdrawing the motions to stay and
vacate, which the court entered.

The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the
allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable to
provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit
or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position and results of operations.

On September 16, 2016, plaintiff filed VMT II LLC v. TerraForm
Global, Inc. et al. in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo against the Company,
certain officers and directors of the Company and SunEdison, and
the underwriters of SunEdison's preferred stock offering. The
plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act, as well as the Maryland Securities Act. The
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements in connection with the Company's
IPO, and that these false and misleading statements led to the
forced conversion of their Class D securities into restricted
common stock. The complaint further alleges that the Company
breached the June 9, 2015 Class D Purchase Agreement between the
Company and the plaintiffs and made negligent misrepresentations
in connection with the Company's Class D registration statement.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission, and such
other relief (including equitable or injunctive relief) as the
court may deem just and proper.

On September 28, 2016, in light of SunEdison's voluntary petition
for bankruptcy on April 21, 2016, the Company and the other
defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. Plaintiffs did not oppose the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel's conditional transfer order.

The Company is in the preliminary stages of reviewing the
allegations made in the complaint and, as a result, is unable to
provide any assurances as to the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit
or that an adverse resolution of this lawsuit would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position and results of operations.

On December 19, 2016, an initial case management conference was
held in the multidistrict litigation proceedings in the SDNY. The
Court entered an order requiring all parties to the multidistrict
litigation, including the parties to the conditional transfer
cases, to mediate and entered a partial stay of all proceedings
through March 31, 2017.

TerraForm Global, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the "Company") is a
dividend growth-oriented company formed to own and operate
contracted clean power generation assets.


TILLY'S INC: Faces "Minniti" Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tilly's, Inc. The
case is captioned as Lauren Minniti, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. Tilly's, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and John Does
1-5, the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60237-FAM (S.D. Fla., Jan.
30, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno.

Tilly's is an American retail clothing company that sells action
sports-branded clothing, accessories, shoes, and equipment.
Tilly's is headquartered and operated from Irvine, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


TJX COMPANIES: Faces "David" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The TJX Companies,
Inc. The case is styled as DiCarlo David, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v The TJX Companies,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00717 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30,
2017).

TJX is a discount retail chain featuring stylish brand-name
apparel, shoes and accessories, plus housewares.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


U.S. BANK: Defending Against BlackRock Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------
Appalachian Power Company said in its Form 10-D Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2017, for
the semi-annual distribution period from August 1, 2016 to January
31, 2017, that U.S. Bank National Association has provided the
following information to the depositor:

"Since 2014 various plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, primarily
investors, have filed claims against U.S. Bank National
Association ("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as trustee or successor
trustee (as the case may be) under certain residential mortgage
backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. The plaintiffs or plaintiff
groups have filed substantially similar complaints against other
RMBS trustees, including Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of
New York Mellon and Wells Fargo. The complaints against U.S. Bank
allege the trustee caused losses to investors as a result of
alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and
servicers for these RMBS trusts and assert causes of action based
upon the trustee's purported failure to enforce repurchase
obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of
representations and warranties concerning loan quality. The
complaints also assert that the trustee failed to notify
securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by
breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and
that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by a heightened
standard of care following alleged events of default."

"Currently U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging
individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect
to multiple trusts with the most substantial case being: BlackRock
Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National
Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (class action
alleging claims with respect to approximately 794 trusts) and its
companion case BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio et al v. U.S Bank
National Association, No. 14-cv-9401 (S.D.N.Y.). Some of the
trusts implicated in the aforementioned Blackrock cases, as well
as other trusts, are involved in actions brought by separate
groups of plaintiffs related to no more than 100 trusts per case."


UNITED OF OMAHA: "Sullivan" Sues Over Reduced Insurance Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Betsy Sullivan, individually and as successor-in-interest, heir,
personal representative and/or administrator to Betsy Scharber,
deceased and the Estate of Betsy Scharber, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United of Omaha
Life Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 4:17-cv-00363, (N.D. Cal., January 24, 2017), seeks temporary,
preliminary and permanent order for injunctive relief;
disgorgement and restitution of ill-gotten gains; restitution,
compensatory, special and general damages; punitive and exemplary
damages; treble damages and penalties under Civil Code Sec. 3345
and California Business and Professions Code Sec. 6153, 6175.4,
6175.5 and 17206.1; double damages under Probate Code Sec. 859;
transfer of the wrongfully obtained monies and/or property under
Probate Code Sec. 850-859; imposition of a constructive trust;
recessionary and injunctive relief and/or such other equitable
relief, including restitution, disgorgement of ill-gotten profits;
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of investigation and
litigation under California Business and Professions Code and
Financial Elder Abuse and the California Welfare and Institutions
Code.

Betsy Sullivan is a successor-in-interest, heir, personal
representative and/or administrator to Betsy Scharber, deceased,
and the Estate of Betsy Scharber. She claims to have received
reduced death benefit payment because the United of Omaha policies
lapsed and were continued as Reduced Paid-Up Life Insurance for
nonpayment of premiums without providing the required notice to
policyholders and their designated third parties.

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Ingird Evans, Esq.
       EVANS LAW FIRM, INC.
       3053 Fillmore Street, #236
       San Francisco, CA 94123
       Telephone: (415) 441-8669
       Facsimile: (888) 891-4906
       E-mail: ingrid@evanslaw.com

               - and -

       Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
       Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
       BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
       2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
       Phoenix, AZ 85016
       Telephone: (602) 274-1100
       Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
       E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
               fbalint@bffb.com


UNITED STATES: "Ali" Files Suit v. Pres. Trump, DHS, USCIS
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US President Donald
Trump. The case is titled as Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali; A. F. A., a
minor; Reema Khaled Dahman; G. E., a minor; Ahmed Mohammed Ahmed
Ali; and E. A., a minor, on behalf of themselves as individuals
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Donald Trump, President of the United States of America; U.S.
Department of State; Tom Shannon, Acting Secretary of State; U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; John F. Kelly, Secretary of
Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Lori
Scialabba, Acting Director of USCIS; Office of the Director of
National Intelligence; and Michael Dempsey, Acting Director of
National Intelligence, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00135-JLR
(W.D. Wash., Jan. 30, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
James L. Robart.

Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television
personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United
States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid, Esq.
          Matt Adams, Esq.
          NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT (SEA)
          615 2nd Ave., Ste 400
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 957 8646
          E-mail: glenda@nwirp.org
                  matt@nwirp.org


UNITED STATES: "Clarke" Sues 4th Cir. Ct., North Carolina Judges
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fourth Circuit Court
Judges. The case is styled as Nigel Clarke, and all other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fourth Circuit Court Judges,
and Eastern District of North Carolina Judges, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:17-ct-03025-D (E.D.N.C., Jan. 30, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Chief Judge James C. Dever, III.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is one
of twelve regional appellate courts within the federal judicial
system.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Shareholder Files Class Action in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vascular Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2017, that
Vascular Solutions shareholder filed a purported class action on
behalf of a class of all Vascular Solutions shareholders in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On December 1, 2016, Vascular Solutions, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation ("Vascular Solutions"), Teleflex Incorporated., a
Delaware corporation ("Teleflex"), and Violet Merger Sub Inc., a
Minnesota corporation ("Merger Sub") entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement").  On January 18, 2017,
Vascular Solutions filed a definitive proxy statement (the "Proxy
Statement") with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
solicitation of proxies in connection with a special meeting of
Vascular Solutions' shareholders to be held on February 16, 2017
to vote upon, among other matters, a proposal to adopt the Merger
Agreement and approve the merger of Merger Sub with and into
Vascular Solutions, with Vascualr Solutions the surviving
corporation in the merger.

On January 27, 2017, a Vascular Solutions shareholder filed a
purported class action on behalf of a class of all Vascular
Solutions shareholders in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.  The case is captioned, Paul Parshall v.
Vascular Solutions, Inc., John Erb, Howard Root, Martin Emerson,
Richard Kramp, Richard Nigon, Paul O'Connell, Jorge Saucedo,
Teleflex Incorporated, and Violet Merger Sub Inc.  The Parshall
Action claims that Vascular Solutions and the Individual
Defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and that
Teleflex and the Individual Defendants violated Section 20 of the
Exchange Act.  The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement
omits material information and seeks, among other matters, to
enjoin or rescind the merger with Teleflex, seeks an award of
unspecified damages, attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and
requests that the case be certified as a class action.  Vascular
Solutions and the Individual Defendants believe that the
plaintiff's claims are without merit.  If additional similar
complaints are filed, absent new or different allegations that are
material, Vascular Solutions will not necessarily announce such
additional filings.


VERDE ENERGY: "Coleman" Sues Over Illegal Sales Call
----------------------------------------------------
Christopher Coleman, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00062, (S.D. Ill., January 23, 2017), seeks treble
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, pre-
judgment and post-judgment and such other and further relief under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is an independent energy supplier that offers utility
services in Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey.
Plaintiff began receiving automated telephone calls from Defendant
without his consent offering their services.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James L. Davidson, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Tel: (561) 826-5477
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com


VIACOM: High Court Denies Petition for Writ of Certiorari
---------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Shoaf Richardson at The National Law Review reports that
a class action alleging Viacom illegally obtained and disclosed
personally identifiable information from children under the age of
thirteen through the Nickelodeon website recently reached the end
of line (almost) when the class' petition for writ of certiorari
was denied by the Supreme Court.  The high court chose not to
further define the contours of what constitutes "personally
identifiable information" and "disclosure."

The drafters of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act ("the Act")
likely had no idea that the law passed nearly thirty years ago
would be raised to challenge the practice we each encounter
hundreds of times per week -- tracking of our IP addresses through
the use of cookies on websites. The law prohibits disclosure of
personally identifying information relating to viewers'
consumption of video-related services. When passed, lawmakers
probably envisioned video rental clerks being prohibited from
sharing the list of videos a particular renter selected with
others. Now, in a world where the number of viewers and followers
is equivalent to profits for all who sell, information gained from
IP addresses makes it possible for companies to target individuals
in a way that was probably never imagined.

The Third Circuit decided as a matter of first impression that
Viacom had not disclosed personally identifiable information in
violation of the Act when it shared IP addresses, collected
through cookies, with Google for its use in targeted advertising.
The court did identify that there is a split of authority
regarding whether or not "static digital identifiers," such as IP
addresses, constituted personally identifiable information because
they could, in theory, be combined with other information to
identify an individual. Other courts, including the First Circuit,
have held that any unique identifier, including an IP address
combined with GPS coordinates, could constitute personally
identifying information. This decision also stands in contrast
with a recent EU ruling, Breyer v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland,
E.C.J., No. C-582/14, which held that under certain circumstances
IP addresses could constitute personal data protected under EU
data protection law. However, in the Nickelodeon case, the court
determined the information could not be used to identify a
specific individual without extraordinary effort and that the
information had not been disclosed.


VISITOR'S CONTROL: Class Certification Denied Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Timothy DeGiusti entered an order on January 26, 2017, in
the lawsuit captioned JOHN D. HORTON, the Plaintiff, v. VISITOR'S
CONTROL CENTER, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01260-D (W.D,
Okla.), denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification without
prejudice to refiling, if appropriate, at a later time.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dpi2uoxU


WELLS FARGO: Bids to Dismiss Investor Plaintiffs' Actions Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. said in its Form 10-D Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2017,
for the monthly distribution period from December 17, 2016 to
January 18, 2017, that Motions to Dismiss all of the investor
plaintiffs' actions are pending.

On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed a civil
complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in its capacity as trustee
under 276 residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts,
which was later amended on July 18, 2014, to increase the number
of trusts to 284 RMBS trusts. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the state court action
without prejudice. That same day, a group of institutional
investors filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"District Court") against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging claims
against the bank in its capacity as trustee for 274 RMBS trusts
(the "Federal Court Complaint").

In December 2014, the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss
their original state court action was granted. As with the prior
state court action, the Federal Court Complaint is one of six
similar complaints filed contemporaneously against RMBS trustees
(Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and US
Bank) by a group of institutional investor plaintiffs. The Federal
Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank alleges that the trustee caused
losses to investors and asserts causes of action based upon, among
other things, the trustee's alleged failure to: (i) notify and
enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for
purported breaches of representations and warranties, (ii) notify
investors of alleged Events of Default, and (iii) abide by
appropriate standards of care following alleged Events of Default.
Relief sought includes money damages in an unspecified amount,
reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. Other cases
alleging similar causes of action have been filed against Wells
Fargo Bank and other trustees in the District Court by RMBS
investors in these and other transactions, and these cases against
Wells Fargo are proceeding before the same District Court judge. A
similar complaint was also filed May 27, 2016 in New York state
court by a different plaintiff investor.

On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the
Federal Court Complaint in which the District Court declined to
exercise jurisdiction over 261 trusts at issue in the Federal
Court Complaint; the District Court also allowed Plaintiffs to
file amended complaints as to the remaining, non-dismissed trusts,
if they so chose, and three amended complaints have been filed.

On December 17, 2016, the investor plaintiffs in the 261 trusts
dismissed from the Federal Court Complaint filed a new complaint
in New York state court (the "State Court Complaint"). Motions to
Dismiss all of the actions are pending except for the recently
filed State Court Complaint.

There can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigations,
or the possible impact of the litigations on the trustee or the
RMBS trusts. However, Wells Fargo Bank denies liability and
believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS
trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of any
losses to investors, and that it has meritorious defenses, and it
intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously.


WELLS FARGO: Wins Prelim. Approval of "Slaughter" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on January 17, 2017, in the case
captioned Lance W. Slaughter, et al. v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC,
et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-06368 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber.

The minute entry states that:

   -- the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for provisional class
      certification, preliminary approval of class action
      settlement, and approval and distribution of notice of
      settlement is granted; and

   -- the agreed motion to seal Appendix 1 to the Settlement
      Agreement is granted.

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


WIGMONT SERVICES: "Salas" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay for Chauffeurs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN SALAS, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. WIGMONT
SERVICES LLC d/b/a SILVER WEST LIMOUSINES, Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-00066-A (N.D. Tex., January 20, 2017), alleges that
Defendants attempted to circumvent the Fair Labor Standards Act by
paying its chauffeur employees a fixed rate of pay for each of the
trips assigned, making unlawful deductions from tips,
misappropriating lawfully earned tips, and failing to pay
employees overtime at a rate of one-and-one-half the regular rate
for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Defendant Silver West Limousines is a chauffeur transportation
company located in Tarrant County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
     HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
     777 Main St., Suite 600
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Phone: (817) 479-9229
     Fax: (817) 887-1878
     E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com


XANITOS INC: Final Approval Hearing Moved to April 26
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAULA DONALD, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public Plaintiff, v. XANITOS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-05416 WHO (N.D. Cal.), District Judge
William Orrick moved the March 29, 2017 Final Approval Hearing
until April 26, 2017.

Based on the Stipulation, the parties requested a short
continuance of the final fairness hearing of approximately 30 days
to allow the Xanitos to complete the compilation of class member
data, to mail the Settlement Notice Packet, and to permit the
class members to provide a response within the deadlines.

A copy of the Court's Order dated January 24, 2017 is available at
https://goo.gl/BbgRbl from Leagle.com.

Paula Donald, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Robert Hoffman --
mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com -- Hoffman Employment Lawyers LLC.

Paula Donald, Plaintiff, represented by Leonard Thomas Emma,
Hoffman Employment Lawyers LLC, Lindsay R. McKasson --
lmckasson@weltinlaw.com -- Weltin Streb & Weltin, LLP & Stephen
Noel Ilg -- silg@ilglegal.com -- Hoffman Employment Lawyers.

Xanitos, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mollie Michelle Burks --
mburks@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Mark S. Posard --
mposard@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & Sara Allison Moore -
- smoore@gordonrees.com -- Gordon and Rees LLP.

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Defendant, represented by Christian
Joseph Rowley -- crowley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Mollie
Michelle Burks -- mburks@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP &
Sara Allison Moore -- smoore@gordonrees.com -- Gordon and Rees
LLP.


                            *********

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  * * *