CAR_Public/170316.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, March 16, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 54



                            Headlines

466 AMAZE: Faces "Shen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
466 AMAZE: Faces "Shen" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACCOUNT DISCOVERY: Pavlovich Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES: Wins Bid to Dismiss Former Inmates' Suit
ALABAMA: Settlement in "Braggs" Has Preliminarily Approval

ALDO'S RESTAURANT: Faces "Wood" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Law
AMAZON STUDIOS: "Solano-Rodriguez" Suit Invokes FLSA, NY Laws
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Awaits Court Ruling on Merger Suit Schedule
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Suits Over DOJ Antitrust Investigation Pending
AMERICAN MODERN: "Edwards" Class Settlement Has Prelim. Approval

AMPLIFY SNACK: "Morrison" Suit Removed to E.D. Mo.
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: "Rubel" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
ANTHEM INC: Appeal in "Gold" Suit Underway
ANTHEM INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Junk ESI/Anthem Suit Claims
ANTHEM INC: Fact Discovery in Cyber Attack Suit Completed in Dec.

APN INC: Faces "Grimm" Class Suit in C.D. Calif.
ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Fort McClellan Credit Union Files Suit
ARES CAPITAL: American Capital Shareholders Amend Complaint
ARES CAPITAL: Elliott Entities Consolidated Suit Remains Pending
AVON PRODUCTS: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in ERISA Suit

BENIHANA INC: Calif. Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Wilkes"
ENERGY TRANSFER: Del. Court Denies Bids for Summary Judgment
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Has Accrued $2.4-Mil. Settlement in "Sears" Suit
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Has Paid $3.2-Mil. Settlement in "Cardoza" Suit
BOX-N-GO: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bacon" Suit Claims

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: "Pettinridge Suit" Joins MDL 2418
CAFE CIRCA: Faces "Nelson" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
CAFETASIA INC: Faces "Guaraca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ehrnfeld" Suit Says
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA: Summary Ruling in ATE Suit Affirmed

CHRISTIAN FUNERAL: Sued in Tennessee Over Insurance Coverage
CLECO CORPORATE: No Briefing Schedule Yet in Merger Case Appeal
CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
COMEX FOOD: Faces "Garcia" Suit Alleging Non-payment of Wages
CONCHETTA INC: Faces "Colon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

CONNECTICUT, USA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Britt" Suit
CONNECTICUT, USA: Britt Appeals District Court Ruling to 2nd Cir.
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Court Flips Class Cert. in "Strack" Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid for Prelim OK of "Thompson" Deal Denied
COTY INC: Faces "Bowens" Class Suit in Mid. Dist. Ala.

CYNOSURE INC: Gusinsky Trust Files Suit Over Merger with Hologic
DEAN FOODS: March 28 Trial in Antitrust Class Action
DISH NETWORK: TCPA Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: "Scranton" Suit Briefing to Continue in 2017
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Schwab Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint

EQUIFAX INC: Settlement Documents in FCRA Suit Due March 17
EM CONSULTING: Faces "Yassa" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Law
EMTEK PRODUCTS: Faces "Nieto" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Florida District Court Dismisses Class Suit

ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Dougherty Wants Dismissal Order Altered
ETHICON US: Faces "Diresta" Class Suit in South. Dist. New York
FACEBOOK INC: Duguid Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision to Ninth Circuit
FCA US: Faces "Kelley" Class Suit in Massachusetts
FCNH INC: Nesbitt Appeals D. Colorado Ruling to Tenth Circuit

FEDERAL-MOGUL HOLDINGS: "Sanders" Suit Remains Pending in Mich.
FEDERAL-MOGUL HOLDINGS: Stockholder Suit Remains Pending in Del.
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Gaines" Suit in N.D. Calif.
FIRST CHOICE: "Prochaska" Sues On Behalf of Dental Hygienists
FIRST SOLAR: Merits Briefing Ongoing in Pension Schemes Suit

FOGO DE CHAO: Sued over Disabled Inaccessible Establishment
FORD MOTOR: Philips Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: Kessler, Cohen Named Interim Lead Counsel
FRESH MARKET: Faces "Sherman" Suit Over Sale to Pomegranate
GARMIN LTD: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in "Katz" Suit

GC SERVICES: "Alderman" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
GREENSKY LLC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Alfortish" Granted
GUESS: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Architectural Barriers
HANOVER INSURANCE: "Durand" Suit Remains Pending in Kentucky
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Appeal from Dismissal of "Nichols" Suit Pending

HERTZ CORP: Bid to Compel in "Margulis" Granted in Part
HILL'S PET: Faces "Vanzant" Lawsuit Over Deceptive Labeling
HOLY REDEEMER: Faces "Snyder" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Powell" Suit
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Final Hearing in Overdraft Suit on June 2

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Wins Approval of Merger Suits Settlement
IC SYSTEM: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Defends Wisconsin, Tennessee Antitrust Suits
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Suit vs. Containerboard Producers Pending

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Leiner" Class Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hammack Seeks Review of Order in "Leiner" Suit
JON DAVLER: Faces "Bocardo" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Orellana" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation
KAUFMAN ENGLETT: Cadwell Appeals M.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Cir.

KNIGHT ENTERPRISES: Seeks Review of Decision in "Weckesser" Suit
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Gainesville Suit Parties Still Await Ruling
LA CUCINA: Faces "Paula" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Work
LAS OLAS: Calderon, et al. Allege Violation of Fla. Wage Rates
LAURA J LOWENSTEIN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dawson" Suit Says

LEGGETT & PLATT: Indirect Purchaser Suits Fully Resolved
LUBRIZOL: Ohio Appeals Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
M&T BANK: Trial in Wilmington Trust Securities Suit on June 2018
MALEN & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bakon" Suit Says
MARK OBENSTINE: Seeks Review of Decision in "Estakhrian" Suit

MDL 2074: Anthem Wins Final Judgment
MDL 2196: Leggett & Platt Still Faces Polyurethane Foam Suits
MDL 2280: NJ Court Grants MSSB's Summary Judgment Bid
MDL 2406: Subscriber and Provider Plaintiffs Add New Claims
MTAG SERVICES: Connecticut Court Narrows Claims in "Weldon"

MXI CORP: Class Settlement in "Martinez" Has Final Approval
NETFLIX INC: "Ziolkowski" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
NEW FOOD: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "De Los Santos" Suit
NEW RESIDENTIAL: Chester County Employees' Bid to Reargue Denied
NEW RESIDENTIAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending

NEW RESIDENTIAL: Says Walter and Ditech Facing Class Suits
NEW YORK TIMES: Final Hearing Next Month on Labor Case Settlement
NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL: Deceives Policyholders, "McClendon" Says
NPAS INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Fausz" Partially Granted
OBESITY RESEARCH: Bozic Appeals Transfer of Case to E.D. Calif.

OCWEN LOAN: Ala. Court Refuses to Entertain Couple's FDCPA Suit
OPTUM360 LLC: "Mauthe" Files Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
P.F. CHANG'S: Faces "Rabanal" Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
PACIFIC WEST: Faces "Applebaum" Suit for Misleading Investors
PANERA BREAD: Defends "Friscia" Suit in New Jersey District Court

PANERA BREAD: Settlement of Wage & Hour Suits Win Initial OK
PENNSYLVANIA: PHEAA Faces "Salvatore" Class Suit in M.D. Penn.
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Fisher and Fish industry Subclass Certified
PRICELINE GROUP: "Laquer" Suit Transferred to Connecticut
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: "Pineda" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations

QUEMETCO INC: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Alleging Non-Payment of Wages
R & S QUALITY: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
RELIABLE COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
RELIANCE TRUST: Class Certification Status Hearing Set for May 5
RELIANT CAPITAL: Joint Class Certification Bid Filed in "Etienne"

RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dawson" Suit Says
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit v. American Tobacco Still Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit v. A C & S Remains Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit v. American Tobacco Dormant
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Lorillard Defending 78 Filter Cases

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Bourassa" Class Action in Canada Underway
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: May 2017 Trial for 5 West Virginia IPIC Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Bid to Dismiss Smokeless Tobacco Claims Denied
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal in ERISA Litigation Underway
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: BAT's Motion for Rehearing En Banc Denied

SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: "Curiel" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violation
SAFEWAY INC: "Altamirano" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Pronstroller" Sues Over Washing Machines
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Appeals Decision in "Mendis" Suit to 9th Cir.
SEI INVESTMENTS: Stanford Trust-Related Suits Remain Pending

SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Bivens" Suit Over RESPA Violation
SHIRE PLC: Sao Paulo's Class Claims in ELAPRASE Suit Dismissed
SODEXO INC: "Piveronas" Lawsuit Alleges FCRA Violation
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFF: Faces "Jacobson" Class Action
SOUTHERN CO: Cook County Court Refuses to Certify Customers Class

SOUTHERN CO: Defends Securities Class Suit by Monroe County ERS
SOUTHERN CO: Has Filed for Writ of Certiorari in Georgia Sup. Ct.
SPIRIT CRUISE: Midnight Party Cruise Passengers File Crash Suit
STANDARD PARKING: "Huda" Suit Alleges Violation of WARN Act
STAR HOME: "Paradysz" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA

STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Summary Ruling in "Vaquero" Reversed
SWIFT FINANCIAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Scott" Suit Says
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: May 15 Class Cert. Hearing in "Mckinsty"
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: May 15 Class Cert. Hearing in "Mares" Suit
TGI FRIDAYS: "Calabrese" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class

TOTAL WEALTH: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Calderon" Class Suit
TOWN SPORTS: Has Paid Settlement Amount to Resolve "Labbe" Suit
TWILIO INC: Discovery in "Flowers" Suit to Continue Until August
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Singh" Suit
UBS COMMERCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock's California Suit

UBS COMMERCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock's New York Suit
UNDER ARMOUR: "Stenger" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
UNITED STATES: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Combat-Related Compensation
UNITED STATES: Hawaii Files Amended Trump Travel Bank Lawsuit
VILLE PLATTE: Loses Exception of Prescription Arguments

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Pleads Guilty in Emissions-Cheating Scandal
WAH MING: Faces "Luna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Perez" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
WELLS FARGO: "Volcy" Lawsuit Seeks Injunction of Foreclosures
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Shadid" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation

WESTAR ENERGY: Merger-Related Suits Remain Pending
WESTERN UNION: Awaits Rulings on Pending Motions in "Pincus" Suit
WESTERN UNION: Cannot Estimate Loss in Tennille and Smet Suits
WESTERN UNION: "Herman" Class Suit in California Underway
WESTERN UNION: Defends "Smallen" Class Suit Pending in Colorado

WESTERN UNION: Wins Prelim. Approval of "Douglas" Suit Settlement
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Oklahoma Suit
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Delaware Court OKs Shareholder Suit Dismissal
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Farmland Appeals Unfavorable Final Judgment
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: FHRA Claims Remanded for Further Resolution

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: April & August Trials in Geismar Lawsuits
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Suit Over Energy Transfer Merger Still Stayed
WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Unitholder Suit
WILLIAMS PARTNERS: More Trials in Geismar Suits in April & Aug.
XTO ENERGY: Hutchison Appeals E.D. Arkansas Ruling to 8th Circuit

XTO ENERGY: Mobley Lumber Appeals E.D. Ark. Order to 8th Circuit
YELP INC: Faces "Schram" Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
YUM BRANDS: Appeals in Taco Bell Wage and Hour Suit Still Pending
ZICO BEVERAGES: Faces "Barrios" Suit in Cent. Dist. California

* House Approves Class Action Litigation Reform Bill


                            *********


466 AMAZE: Faces "Shen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yu Ling Shen, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. 466 Amaze Corp. d/b/a "Amaze Fusion &
Lounge", Xue Mei Chen, and "John" (first name unknown) Dong, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01557 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1066 1st
Avenue, New York, NY 10022.

Yu Ling Shen is a pro se plaintiff.


466 AMAZE: Faces "Shen" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yu Ling Shen, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Xue Mei Chen, "John" (first name unknown)
Dong, and 466 Amaze Corp. d/b/a "Amaze Fusion & Lounge", Case No.
1:17-cv-01556 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1066 1st
Avenue, New York, NY 10022.

Yu Ling Shen is a pro se plaintiff.


ACCOUNT DISCOVERY: Pavlovich Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Pavlovich, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Account Discovery Systems, LLC and DNF Associates,
LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00412-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal., February 28,
2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

The Defendants operate a collection agency based in Amherst, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Asil A. Mashiri, Esq.
      MASHIRI LAW FIRM
      11251 Rancho Carmel Drive, Suite 500694
      San Diego, CA 92150
      Telephone: (858) 348-4938
      Facsimile: (858) 348-4939
      E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com


ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES: Wins Bid to Dismiss Former Inmates' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Linda V. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the case captioned W. CURTIS SHAIN, SCOTT IRWIN,
ROBERT SPILLMAN, CEDRIC MYLES, and ANTHONY CALABRO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC and SANDISK CORPORATION,
Defendants, Civil Case No. 16-10367 (E.D. Mich.).

Federal Bureau of Prison manages and operates the commissaries
within its facilities. The warden and designated staff at each BOP
facility decides, within the guidelines set forth in BOP Program
Statement 4500.11, what items to sell in the facility's
commissary. The guidelines allow for the sale of the MP3 player
identified by the Central Office, Trust Fund Branch which may only
be ordered from the vendor identified by the Central Office, Trust
Fund Branch, to ensure the special security features and interface
with TRULINCS, BOP's Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System
function correctly.

In 2012, BOP and Advance Technologies Group signed a $5.15 million
contract giving ATG the exclusive right to supply prison-
restricted MP3 players and MP3 music and audio files to BOP
inmates. Around the same time, ATG and SanDisk entered into an
agreement for SanDisk to supply exclusively the prison-restricted
MP3 players to ATG.

The named plaintiffs are former BOP inmates who now reside in
Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, or New York.  While
incarcerated, plaintiffs purchased MP3 players, which are on the
BOP operated facility's Commissary List of items for sale. The
putative class action lawsuit is filed by released inmates on
behalf of themselves and current and released BOP inmates who
purchased MP3 players and music or other audio files during their
incarceration. Plaintiffs assert claims against defendants under
the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, as well as
various common law and state law claims.

In Counts I-VIII of their complaint, plaintiffs allege that
defendants engaged in unlawful tying, or conspiracy to engage in
unlawful tying, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act. In counts IX-XII, plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged
in unlawful monopolization, attempted monopolization, or
conspiracy to monopolize in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Parker observed that any injury plaintiffs claim is a
byproduct of BOP's rules for its MP3 program rather than
defendants' alleged anti-competitive conduct. Plaintiffs were
limited to purchasing one brand and model of MP3 player with
certain security features because this is what BOP requires. Per
BOP policy, plaintiffs were allowed to access and download audio
files to authorized MP3 players only through TRULINCS, which BOP
operates and manages. The MP3 players will stop working shortly
after a prisoner's release and thus released purchasers will lose
access to their purchased music collections because BOP requires
the players to be connected to TRULINCS every two weeks to remain
operable. Antitrust injury is lacking to support plaintiffs'
Sherman Act claims against defendants.

Because BOP policies, rather than any affirmative act by
defendants, create the barrier between released purchasers and
their purchased music collections, plaintiffs conversion and
unjust enrichment claims also fail. Plaintiffs' claims alleging
unconscionability and breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing fail to state independent causes of action.
Plaintiffs do not allege facts to support the necessary elements
of their claims under the Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and
New York consumer protection acts. With the demise of such claims,
plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim fails as well.

Accordingly, Judge Parker granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6), and denied as moot the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1).

A copy of Judge Parker's opinion and order dated February 28,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/Vkda4M from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Brian Scott Cohen -- brian@cohenlg.com
-- at Cohen Law Group, P.C.; Richard L. Merpi -- rlm@miller.law --
Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@miller.law -- E. Powell Miller --
epm@miller.law -- at The Miller Law Firm

Advanced Technologies Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Christopher G. Dean -- cdean@mcdonaldhopkins.com -- Dan L. Makee -
- dmakee@mcdonaldhopkins.com -- Jennifer D. Armstrong --
jarmstrong@mcdonaldhopkins.com -- at McDonald Hopkins LLC


ALABAMA: Settlement in "Braggs" Has Preliminarily Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Myron H. Thompson of the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Alabama gave preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement in the case captioned, EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:14cv601-MHT (M.D. Ala.).
Inmates bring the putative class action against the Alabama
Department of Corrections (ADOC) for mental health claims made
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and under Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act. They alleged that the ADOC (1) has
failed to make appropriate accommodations for people with mental
health disabilities in its policies and procedures; (2) has
discriminated against inmates with mental health disabilities in
the provision of and access to programs, benefits, and services;
and (3) has failed to provide appropriate programming designed for
persons with intellectual disabilities in ADOC facilities.

The plaintiffs proposed a class of all of "any current or future
inmate in the physical custody of the ADOC who has a disability as
defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
Section 12102 and 29 U.S.C. Section 705(9)(B), relating to or
arising from mental disease, illness, or defect."

The Plaintiffs and the ADOC have reached a proposed settlement
that would release the ADOC from any further liability as to the
mental health claims brought under the ADA by the plaintiff class.
The settlement agreement requires the ADOC to pay fees to the
court-approved monitor and attorneys' fees to the lawyers who
represented the class members.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the parties
jointly move the court to grant preliminary approval to their
proposed ADA mental health settlement agreement in Phase 2A of the
litigation; to approve the form of notice to class members of the
proposed settlement agreement; to approve the form for objecting
to or commenting on the proposed settlement agreement; and to
approve the process for distributing these documents and
collecting comments.
In an Opinion and Order dated February 22, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/h2G4e3 from Leagle.com, Judge Thompson found that
the settlement class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) --
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation -- as well as the requirement of Rule 23(b)(2) that
the issues involved "apply generally to the class," such that
"relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole." The court
preliminarily found that plaintiffs' counsel in the case can
capably serve as and should be appointed class counsel, based on
the factors outlined in Rule 23(g).

The Court appoints the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Alabama
Disabilities Advocacy Program, and Baker, Donelson, Bearman,
Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, are appointed as class counsel to
represent the settlement class under Rule 23(g). A fairness
hearing is set for 10:00 a.m. on June 2, 2017.

Edward Braggs, et al. are represented by Andrew Philip Walsh, Esq.
-- awalsh@bakerdonelson.com -- Patricia Clotfelter, Esq. --
pclotfelter@bakerdonelson.com -- and -- William Glassell
Somerville, III, Esq. -- wsomerville@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER
DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ

            -- and --

      Brooke Menschel, Esq.
      Ebony Glenn Howard, Esq.
      Eunice Cho, Esq.
      Jack Richard Cohen, Esq.
      Latasha Lanette McCrary, Esq.
      Maria V. Morris, Esq.
      Miriam Fahsl Haskell, Esq.
      Rhonda C. Brownstein, Esq.
      SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
400 Washington Avenue
      Montgomery, AL 36104

Alabama Department of Corrections, et al. are represented by David
Randall Boyd, Esq. -- dboyd@balch.com -- John W. Naramore, Esq. --
jnaramore@balch.com -- and -- John Garland Smith, Esq. --
jgsmith@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP

            -- and --

      Anne Adams Hill, Esq.
      Elizabeth Anne Sees, Esq.
      Joseph Gordon Stewart, Jr., Esq.
      ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
      301 S. Ripley Street
      P.O. Box 301501
      Montgomery, AL 36130-1501
      Tel:(334)353-3883


ALDO'S RESTAURANT: Faces "Wood" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE WOOD (4583 Williamston Avenue, Brooklyn, Ohio 44144) On
behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. ALDO'S
RESTAURANT, INC. (8459 Memphis Avenue, Brooklyn, Ohio 44144,
Please also serve: Robert R. Lucarelli, 1228 Euclid Avenue, #900,
Cleveland, Ohio 44115) - and - ALDO ZAPPA (8941 Springcrest
Brooklyn, Ohio 44144) Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00413-CAB (N.D.
Ohio, March 1, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff and the proposed
class were not paid for all hours worked; were paid less than the
minimum wage; or had their tip income improperly and unlawfully
withheld and paid to persons not eligible to receive tip income.
The suit raises claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

ALDO'S RESTAURANT, INC. is an Italian restaurant.  Aldo's employed
the Plaintiff as a server.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris P. Wido, Esq.
     THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
     25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
     Beachwood, OH 44122
     Phone: (216) 291-4744
     Fax: (216) 291-5744
     Email: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


AMAZON STUDIOS: "Solano-Rodriguez" Suit Invokes FLSA, NY Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marvelous Solano-Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amazon Studios, Inc.;
Amazon Content Services LLC; Picrow, Inc.; Picrow Streaming Inc.;
Picrow Features Inc.; Jigsaw Productions Inc.; and Big Indie
Pictures, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01587 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 2, 2017) alleges failure by Defendants to pay minimum wages
and overtime to Parking Production Assistants in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, New York Minimum
Wage Act, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants produce television shows, motion pictures, films, and
movies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Vagnini, Esq.
     Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
     Matthew Berman, Esq.
     VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
     600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: 516 203 7180


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Awaits Court Ruling on Merger Suit Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Group Inc. awaits acceptance by the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York of a
jointly proposed schedule for the remainder of the merger-related
cases, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On December 9, 2013, a subsidiary of AMR Corporation (AMR) merged
with and into U.S. Airways Group, Inc. (US Airways Group), a
Delaware corporation, which survived as a wholly-owned subsidiary
of AAG, and AAG emerged from Chapter 11 (the Merger).

On July 2, 2013, a lawsuit captioned Carolyn Fjord, et al., v. US
Airways Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaint named as defendants US Airways Group and US Airways,
Inc., alleged that the effect of the Merger may be to create a
monopoly in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act,
and sought injunctive relief and/or divestiture. On August 6,
2013, the plaintiffs re-filed their complaint in the Bankruptcy
Court, adding AMR and American as defendants. On November 27,
2013, the Bankruptcy Court denied plaintiffs' motion to
preliminarily enjoin the Merger.

On August 19, 2015, after three previous largely unsuccessful
attempts to amend their complaint, plaintiffs filed a fourth
motion for leave to file an amended and supplemental complaint to
add a claim for damages and demand for jury trial, as well as
claims similar to those in the putative class action lawsuits
regarding air passenger capacity. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a
request with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
consolidate the Fjord matter with the putative class action
lawsuits, which was denied on October 15, 2015.

A jointly proposed schedule for the remainder of the case was
submitted on September 7, 2016, which has not yet been accepted by
the Bankruptcy Court.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the allegations.

American Airlines Group Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a holding
company and its principal, wholly-owned subsidiaries are American
Airlines, Inc., Envoy Aviation Group Inc., PSA Airlines, Inc. and
Piedmont Airlines, Inc.  AAG was formed in 1982 under the name AMR
Corporation as the parent company of American, which was founded
in 1934.  The Company's primary business activity is the operation
of a major network carrier, providing scheduled air transportation
for passengers and cargo.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Suits Over DOJ Antitrust Investigation Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuits arising from the antitrust
civil investigation demanded by the U.S. Department of Justice
remain pending, American Airlines Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "In June 2015, we received a Civil Investigative
Demand (CID) from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as
part of an investigation into whether there have been illegal
agreements or coordination of air passenger capacity. The CID
seeks documents and other information from us, and other airlines
have announced that they have received similar requests. We are
cooperating fully with the DOJ investigation. In addition,
subsequent to announcement of the delivery of CIDs by the DOJ, we,
along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United
Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of litigation filed in Canada, Air
Canada, have been named as defendants in approximately 100
putative class action lawsuits alleging unlawful agreements with
respect to air passenger capacity. The U.S. lawsuits have been
consolidated in the Federal District Court for the District of
Columbia."

On October 28, 2016, the Court denied a motion by the airline
defendants to dismiss all claims in the class actions.

The Company says both the DOJ investigation and the lawsuits are
in their relatively early stages and the Company intends to defend
these matters vigorously.

American Airlines Group Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a holding
company and its principal, wholly-owned subsidiaries are American
Airlines, Inc., Envoy Aviation Group Inc., PSA Airlines, Inc. and
Piedmont Airlines, Inc.  AAG was formed in 1982 under the name AMR
Corporation as the parent company of American, which was founded
in 1934.  The Company's primary business activity is the operation
of a major network carrier, providing scheduled air transportation
for passengers and cargo.


AMERICAN MODERN: "Edwards" Class Settlement Has Prelim. Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan O. Hickey of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division, granted plaintiffs'
agreed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement
in the case captioned PAMELA GREEN and GARY EDWARDS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 4:14-cv-4074 (W.D. Ark.).

Plaintiffs and defendants have agreed, subject to court approval
to settle the litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions
stated in the stipulation of settlement filed with the court on
January 24, 2017. Plaintiffs filed an agreed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

Judge Hickey preliminarily approved as fair, adequate, and
reasonable plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement in all material respects, with some amendment
in certain non-material respect.

Contingent upon final approval of the proposed settlement, and
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary class certification is granted. The following
settlement class is conditionally certified for settlement
purposes only:

     All persons who had a covered loss in the state of Arkansas
that occurred during the class period of April 11, 2009 through
April 11, 2014, where the claim was paid at less than the limit of
liability (accounting for deductible), and where American Modern
made an ACV payment for Structural Loss that included a deduction
for labor depreciation, or would have made an ACV payment for
structural loss but for the deduction of labor depreciation.
Excluded from the class are: (1) persons who received
indemnification payment(s) for full replacement cost; (2) claims
that were open and still being actively adjusted as of April 11,
2014; (3) claims for which American Modern received an executed
release during the class period; (4) American Modern and its
officers and directors; (5) members of the judiciary and their
staff to whom the action is assigned; and (6) class counsel.

Plaintiffs Pamela Green and Gary Edwards are preliminarily
appointed as representatives of the settlement class and Matt Keil
Steven E. Vowell John C. Goodson William B. Putman of KEIL &
GOODSON P.A. and TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS respectively, Richard Norman
A.F. "Tom" Thompson, III R. Martin Weber, Jr. of Casey Castleberry
CROWLEY NORMAN LLPMURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, James M. Pratt Jason
E. Roselius of JAMES M. PRATT, JR. P.A. MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS,
PLLC, respectively, Matthew L. Mustokoff Richard A. Russo, Jr. of
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER &CHECK, LLP  are appointed as class counsel.
Garden City Group, Inc. shall serve as the third-party
administrator of the settlement in accordance with terms of the
stipulation.

Pending the court's final determination of whether the proposed
settlement will be approved, the court preliminarily enjoins all
class members and their legally authorized representatives, unless
and until they have timely and properly excluded themselves from
the settlement class, from filing, commencing, prosecuting,
intervening in, or participating as a plaintiff, claimant, or
class member in any other lawsuit or administrative, regulatory,
arbitration, or other proceeding in any jurisdiction based on or
arising from the released claims. By filing, commencing, or
prosecuting a lawsuit or administrative, regulatory, arbitration,
or other proceeding in any jurisdiction as a class action on
behalf of any class members who have not timely excluded
themselves, based on or arising from the released claims and from
attempting to effect an opt-out class of individuals in any
lawsuit or administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or other
proceeding in any jurisdiction arising from the released claims.

The court has reviewed and approves the mailed notice, claim form,
publication notice, and reminder postcard. Counsel for the
parties, along with the administrator, are authorized to complete
any missing information and to make any non-substantive revisions
to these documents that do not materially reduce the rights of the
class members as necessary to fulfill the purposes of the
settlement.

No more than thirty days after the date of entry of the order,
American Modern shall conduct a reasonable search of its records
during the class period of covered losses and provide to the
administrator the name, last known address, date of loss, policy
number, and claim number for a covered loss person, reasonably
believed to be a potential class member. The administrator shall
send a copy of the mailed notice and a claim form by first-class
U.S. mail to each potential class member for whom American Modern
has ascertained a name and address. Prior to mailing, the
administrator shall run the addresses one time through the
National Change of Address database in an attempt to obtain a
current address for each potential Class Member. Upon completion
of the updating efforts, the administrator shall use its best
efforts to complete the mailing of the mailed notice and claim
form to potential class members by first-class U.S. mail, postage
prepaid, addressed to the last known addresses of potential class
members maintained by American Modern and as updated by the
administrator, and bearing the return address of the
Administrator, by March 24, 2017, which is sixty (60) days prior
to the final approval hearing.

In addition, on or before seven days after the first date of
mailing the mailed notices, the administrator shall:

   a. Set up and maintain an automated toll-free interactive voice
response (IVP) phone number with script recordings of information
about the settlement, utilizing the relevant portions of the
language contained in the mailed notice and other information with
the agreement of the parties, along with an option permitting
callers to leave messages in a voicemail box. The phone number
shall remain open and accessible through the deadline for the
administrator's final accounting as described in paragraph 68 of
the stipulation. The settlement administrator shall make
reasonable provisions for class counsel to be promptly advised of
recorded messages left by persons in the settlement class
concerning the action or the settlement.

   b. Publish a notice of the settlement in the Arkansas Democrat-
Gazette. The publication notice shall be published once a week for
two consecutive weeks as selected by the administrator, in a size
of at least one-eighth of a page.

   c. Establish a settlement website that sets forth the
applicable deadlines, contains relevant documents, and provides
for the electronic submission of claim forms in lieu of returning
mailing of the claim form. The content and form of the settlement
website shall be subject to the mutual approval of American Modern
and plaintiffs, but shall include the stipulation and exhibits,
the order, the mailed notice, a blank claim form, a Spanish
translation of the mailed notice and blank claim form, and such
other documents as Class Counsel and American Modern agree to post
or that the court orders posted on the website. The Uniform
Resource Locator (URL) of the settlement website shall be
www.GreenLaborDepreciationSettlement.com or such other URL as
class counsel and American Modern may subsequently agree upon in
writing. The settlement website shall not include any advertising,
and shall not bear or include any logos or trademarks of American
Modern other than those appearing in the stipulation. The
settlement website shall cease to operate and the administrator
shall remove all information from the website no later than the
deadline for the administrator's final accounting. Ownership of
the settlement website URL shall be transferred to American Modern
within ten days following the date on which operation of the
settlement website ceases.

Class members will be provided an opportunity to submit claim
forms, requesting claim settlement payments in accordance with the
terms of the stipulation and the same shall be considered, if the
claim form was signed by or on behalf of class members, and i) if
in paper form, mailed to the address of the Administrator as
specified in the Claim Form and postmarked by the deadline for
submitting claims, which shall be July 10, 2017, which is forty-
five (45) days after the Final Approval Hearing, or (ii) if
submitted electronically via the Settlement website, be completed
and submitted by midnight CST on July 10, 2017.

On June 5, 2017, thirty-five days prior to the claim submission
deadline, the administrator shall also mail to each class member
who has not filed a claim form a reminder postcard with summary
information regarding the claim submission deadline, the
settlement website address, and sufficient information to enable
the class member to submit a claim form via the settlement website
or to request a blank claim form.

The court will hold a final approval hearing to consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement
at 9:00 a.m., May 24, 2017, at the United States Courthouse,
Texarkana, Arkansas. During the final approval hearing, the court
will consider and determine:

   * Whether the proposed settlement should be finally approved by
the court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and if so, whether to
incorporate the stipulation as the judgment of the court that
shall be binding on all class members who have not timely
requested exclusion from the settlement class.

   * Whether to confirm certification of the settlement class for
settlement purposes only and whether the requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been met for purposes of
certifying the settlement class.

   * Whether notice to potential class members, in the form and
manner described in the order and the stipulation, has been
accomplished as directed, and whether such notice satisfies the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process
as being the best notice practicable under the circumstances to
all persons entitled thereto.

   * Whether and in what amount class counsel shall be awarded
attorneys' fees and expenses, as specified in the stipulation.

   * Whether and in what amount incentive compensation shall be
awarded to the representative plaintiffs and objections, if any,
made to the proposed settlement or any of its terms.

Class members who wish to exclude themselves from the settlement
class must submit a written request for exclusion and the request
must include the class member's name and address, a clear and
unequivocal statement that the class member wishes to be excluded
from the settlement class and the signature of the class member
or, in the case of a class member who is deceased or
incapacitated, the signature of the legally authorized
representative of the class member, with written proof of such
authority. The exclusion request must be mailed to the
administrator at the address provided in the mailed notice and
must be postmarked no later than twenty days prior to the final
approval hearing.

Class members who do not request exclusion from the settlement
class may object to the proposed settlement. Class members who
choose to object to the proposed settlement may file a written
objection. To be considered, the written notice of intent to
object to the proposed settlement should:

Contain a heading which includes the name of the case and case
number of the action. Provide the objector's name, address,
telephone number, and signature. Indicate the specific reasons why
the objector objects to the proposed settlement. Be filed with the
clerk of court no later than twenty days prior to the final
approval hearing and the same must sent to the administrator by
first-class mail, and postmarked no later than twenty days prior
to the final approval hearing. It must contain the name, address,
bar number, and telephone of the objector's counsel, if
represented by an attorney and state whether the objector intends
to appear at the final approval hearing, either in person or
through counsel.

In addition, an objection should contain the following additional
information if the Objector or his/her attorney requests
permission to speak at the Final Approval Hearing:

   i. A detailed statement of the specific legal and factual basis
for each and every objection;

  ii. A list of any and all witnesses whom the objector may call
at the final approval hearing, along with the address of each
witness and a summary of his/her proposed testimony;

iii. A detailed description of any and all evidence the objector
may offer at the final approval hearing, including photocopies of
any and all exhibits which the objector may introduce at the final
approval hearing; and

  iv. Documentary proof of membership in the settlement class.
An objector who does not include the above information in his/her
objections will likely be limited in speaking and presenting
evidence or testimony at the final approval hearing and may be
prevented from doing so entirely. The right to object to the
proposed settlement must be exercised individually by a class
member, not as a member or representative of a group or subclass,
except in the case of a legally authorized representative on
behalf of a deceased or incapacitated class member. Any class
member may appear at the final approval hearing, in person or by
counsel.

On or before May 12, 2017, class counsel shall file with the court
and serve upon American Modern's counsel a motion seeking the
court's final approval of the proposed settlement and stipulation
and entry of the final judgment. On or before May 19, 2017, class
counsel shall file with the court and serve upon American Modern's
counsel a declaration from the administrator confirming
dissemination of the mailed notice, establishment of an automatic
toll-free IVR phone system, establishment of the settlement
website, and posting of the publication notice in accordance with
the terms of the order. The declaration will also list the names
of class members who have timely excluded themselves from the
settlement class, the number of returned mailed notices, and the
names of objectors.

The parties are directed to amend the stipulation and reflect the
modifications noted. A finalized, amended stipulation must be
presented to the court for approval by no later than March 7,
2017. Once the court has approved the amended stipulation, no
additional amendments may be made without prior approval of the
court.

A copy of Judge Hickey's order dated February 28, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/ekfl8u from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III, Murphy --
Kenneth P. Castleberry -- at Thompson, Arnold, Skinner &
Castleberry; Stevan Earl Vowell -- svowell@taylorlawpartners.com -
- Timothy J. Myers -- tmyers@taylorlawpartners.com -- W.H. Taylor
-- whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com -- William B. Putman --
wputman@taylorpartners.com -- at Taylor Law Firm; D. Matt Keil --
Attorney at Law; George L. McWilliams -- at Law Office of George
L. McWilliams, P.C.; James M. Pratt, Jr. -- atJames M. Pratt, Jr.,
P.A.; Jason Earnest Roselius -- Jack Austin Mattingly, Jr. --
Tanner Hicks -- at Mattingly Roselius PLLC; R. Martin Weber, Jr. -
- mweber@crowleynorman.com -- Richard E. Norman --
rnorman@crowleynorman.com -- at Crowley Norman LLP; John C.
Goodson -- at Keil & Goodson; Matthew L. Mustokoff --
mmustokoff@ktmc.com -- Richard A. Russo, Jr. -- rrusso@ktmc.com --
at Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP

American Modern Home Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Andrew Evan Samuels -- asamuels@bakerlaw.com -- Mark A. Johnson --
mjohnson@bakerlaw.com -- Robert J. Tucker -- rtucker@bakerlaw.com
-- Rodger L. Eckelberry -- reckelberry@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker
Hostetler; W. Kelvin Wyrick, Sr. -- Attorney at Law


AMPLIFY SNACK: "Morrison" Suit Removed to E.D. Mo.
--------------------------------------------------
Dominique Morrison, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly-situated current citizens of Missouri v. Amplify Snack
Brands, Inc., Case No. 1722-CC00350, was removed from the Circuit
Court for the City of St. Louis to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:17-cv-00816-RWS to the proceeding.

Amplify Snack Brands, Inc. develops, markets, and distributes
better-for-you snacking products in the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew H. Armstrong
      ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, LLC
      8816 Manchester Road
      St. Louis, MO 63144
      Telephone: (314) 258-0212
      E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Martin J. Buckley, Esq.
      BUCKLEY AND BUCKLEY, L.L.C.
      1139 Olive Street, Suite 800
      St. Louis, MO 63101-1928
      Telephone: (314) 621-3434
      Facsimile: (314) 621-3485
      E-mail: mbuckley@buckleylawllc.com


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: "Rubel" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL RUBEL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., BARRY D.
ZYSKIND, and RONALD E. PIPOLY JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01545 (March 1, 2017), alleges that Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies in violation of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AmTrust had ineffective
assessment of the risks associated with its financial reporting;
(ii) the Company had an insufficient complement of corporate
accounting and corporate financial reporting resources within the
organization; (iii) in turn, the Company lacked effective internal
controls over financial reporting; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, AmTrust's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., through its subsidiaries,
underwrites and provides property and casualty insurance in the
United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 697-6484
     Fax: (212) 697-7296
     Email: peretz@bgandg.com


ANTHEM INC: Appeal in "Gold" Suit Underway
------------------------------------------
The appeal filed by Ronald Gold, et al., is currently under
consideration by the appellate court, Anthem, Inc., said in its
Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company is defending a certified class action filed as a
result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance. The
lawsuit names Anthem Insurance as well as Anthem, Inc. and is
captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. Anthem
Insurance's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the
conversion of Anthem Insurance from a mutual insurance company
into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the
Plan, Anthem Insurance distributed the fair value of the company
at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or
ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for
their membership interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in
Gold allege that Anthem Insurance distributed value to the wrong
ESMs. A trial on liability was held in October 2014.

In June 2015, the court entered judgment for Anthem Insurance on
all issues, finding that (i) Anthem Insurance correctly determined
the state of Connecticut to be an ESM, not Plaintiffs; (ii) Anthem
Insurance acted in good faith in making this determination, while
Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to override a
presumption that Anthem Insurance's ESM determination was correct;
and (iii) Plaintiffs failed to prove the breach of any contractual
obligation.

In July 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment entered for Anthem Insurance. In December 2015, the
Connecticut Supreme Court decided it would hear the appeal
directly rather than the appeal going to the intermediate
appellate court.

Oral arguments were held in October 2016 and the appeal is
currently under consideration by the court.

The Company says it intends to vigorously seek the affirmation of
the trial court's judgment; however, the suit's ultimate outcome
cannot be presently determined.

Anthem, Inc., is one of the largest health benefits companies in
the United States in terms of medical membership, serving 39.9
million medical members through the Company's affiliated health
plans as of December 31, 2016.  The Company is an independent
licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA,
an association of independent health benefit plans. The Company
serves its members as the Blue Cross licensee for California and
as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield, or BCBS, licensee for Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri
(excluding 30 counties in the Kansas City area), Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York (as BCBS in 10 New York City metropolitan and
surrounding counties, and as Blue Cross or BCBS in selected
upstate counties), Ohio, Virginia (excluding the Northern Virginia
suburbs of Washington, D.C.) and Wisconsin.


ANTHEM INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Junk ESI/Anthem Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc., awaits ruling on its motion to dismiss all of the
claims brought against it in the consolidated captioned In Re
Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, the Company said in its
Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts Inc. were named as defendants in
a purported class action lawsuit filed in June 2016 in the
Southern District of New York by three members of ERISA plans
alleging ERISA violations captioned Karen Burnett, Brendan
Farrell, and Robert Shullich, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem,
Inc. The lawsuit was then consolidated with a similar lawsuit that
was previously filed against Express Scripts. A first amended
consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated lawsuit,
which is captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation.
The first amended consolidated complaint was filed by six
individual plaintiffs against Anthem and Express Scripts on behalf
of all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of any
ERISA or non-ERISA health care plan from December 1, 2009 to the
present in which Anthem provided prescription drug benefits
through a PBM Agreement with Express Scripts and who paid a
percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that
prescription drug benefit.

As to the ERISA members, the plaintiffs allege that Anthem
breached its duties under ERISA (i) by failing to adequately
monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the PBM Agreement and (ii)
by placing its own pecuniary interest above the best interests of
Anthem insureds for its own pecuniary interest by allegedly
agreeing to higher pricing in the PBM Agreement in exchange for
the $4,675.0 purchase price for the Company's NextRx PBM business.

As to the non-ERISA members, the plaintiffs assert that Anthem
breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
implied in the health plans under which the non-ERISA members are
covered by (i) negotiating and entering into the PBM Agreement
with Express Scripts that was detrimental to the interests of the
such non-ERISA members, (ii) failing to adequately monitor the
activities of Express Scripts, including failing to timely monitor
and correct the prices charged by Express Scripts for prescription
medications, and (iii) acting in Anthem's self-interests instead
of the interests of the non-ERISA members when it accepted the
$4,675.0 purchase price for NextRx.

Plaintiffs seek to hold Anthem and Express Scripts jointly and
severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the
proposed class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-
gotten gains, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and
interest. The Company filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims
brought against Anthem, which is pending. ESI filed a motion to
transfer the case to a federal court in Missouri, and the Company
says it intends to oppose the transfer.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this suit;
however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

Anthem, Inc., is one of the largest health benefits companies in
the United States in terms of medical membership, serving 39.9
million medical members through the Company's affiliated health
plans as of December 31, 2016.  The Company is an independent
licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA,
an association of independent health benefit plans. The Company
serves its members as the Blue Cross licensee for California and
as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield, or BCBS, licensee for Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri
(excluding 30 counties in the Kansas City area), Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York (as BCBS in 10 New York City metropolitan and
surrounding counties, and as Blue Cross or BCBS in selected
upstate counties), Ohio, Virginia (excluding the Northern Virginia
suburbs of Washington, D.C.) and Wisconsin.


ANTHEM INC: Fact Discovery in Cyber Attack Suit Completed in Dec.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery was completed in December 2016 in the litigation
arising from the 2015 Cyber Attack Incident against Anthem, Inc.,
according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "In February 2015, we reported that we were the
target of a sophisticated external cyber attack. The attackers
gained unauthorized access to certain of our information
technology systems and obtained personal information related to
many individuals and employees, such as names, birthdays, health
care identification/social security numbers, street addresses,
email addresses, phone numbers and employment information,
including income data. To date, there is no evidence that credit
card or medical information, such as claims, test results or
diagnostic codes, were targeted, accessed or obtained, although no
assurance can be given that we will not identify additional
information that was accessed or obtained."

"Upon discovery of the cyber attack, we took immediate action to
remediate the security vulnerability and retained a cybersecurity
firm to evaluate our systems and identify solutions based on the
evolving landscape. We are providing credit monitoring and
identity protection services to those who have been affected by
this cyber attack. We have continued to implement security
enhancements since this incident. We have incurred expenses
subsequent to the cyber attack to investigate and remediate this
matter and expect to continue to incur expenses of this nature in
the foreseeable future. We recognize these expenses in the periods
in which they are incurred."

"Actions have been filed in various federal and state courts and
other claims have been or may be asserted against us on behalf of
current or former members, current or former employees, other
individuals, shareholders or others seeking damages or other
related relief, allegedly arising out of the cyber attack. Federal
and state agencies, including state insurance regulators, state
attorneys general, the Health and Human Services Office of Civil
Rights and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are investigating
events related to the cyber attack, including how it occurred, its
consequences and our responses."

"In December 2016, the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners, or NAIC, concluded its multistate targeted market
conduct and financial exam. In connection with the resolution of
the matter, the NAIC requested we provide, and we agreed, a
customized credit protection program, equivalent to a credit
freeze, for our members who were under the age of eighteen on
January 27, 2015. No fines or penalties were imposed on us.
Although we are cooperating in these investigations, we may be
subject to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse
effect on how we operate our business and our results of
operations."

"With respect to the civil actions, a motion to transfer was filed
with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in February
2015 and was subsequently heard by the Panel in May 2015. In June
2015, the Panel entered its order transferring the consolidated
matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The U.S. District Court entered its case management
order in September 2015. We filed a motion to dismiss ten of the
counts that are before the U.S. District Court. In February 2016,
the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our
motion, dismissing three counts with prejudice, four counts
without prejudice and allowing three counts to proceed."

"Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in March 2016, and we
subsequently filed a second motion to dismiss. In May 2016, the
court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our
motion, dismissing one count with prejudice, dismissing certain
counts asserted by specific named plaintiffs with or without
prejudice depending on their individualized facts, and allowing
the remaining counts to proceed."

"In July 2016, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint which we
answered in August 2016. Fact discovery was completed in December
2016. There remain two state court cases that are presently
proceeding outside of the Multidistrict Litigation."

Anthem, Inc., is one of the largest health benefits companies in
the United States in terms of medical membership, serving 39.9
million medical members through the Company's affiliated health
plans as of December 31, 2016.  The Company is an independent
licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA,
an association of independent health benefit plans. The Company
serves its members as the Blue Cross licensee for California and
as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield, or BCBS, licensee for Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri
(excluding 30 counties in the Kansas City area), Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York (as BCBS in 10 New York City metropolitan and
surrounding counties, and as Blue Cross or BCBS in selected
upstate counties), Ohio, Virginia (excluding the Northern Virginia
suburbs of Washington, D.C.) and Wisconsin.


APN INC: Faces "Grimm" Class Suit in C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against APN, Inc., DPC
Pet Specialties LLC, Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, Ainsworth Pet
Nutrition Holdings, LLC, Ainsworth Pet Nutrition Parent, LLC, and
Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC

The case is captioned Christina Grimm, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. APN, Inc., DPC Pet Specialties
LLC, Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, Ainsworth Pet Nutrition Holdings,
LLC, Ainsworth Pet Nutrition Parent, LLC, and Ainsworth Pet
Nutrition, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-00356 (C.D. Cal., February 28,
2017).

The Defendants own and operate a pet supply store in Meadville,
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com

ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Fort McClellan Credit Union Files Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Arby's
Restaurant Group, Inc.  The case is captioned Fort McClellan
Credit Union, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00770-MHC (N.D.
Ga., March 2, 2017).

Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. operates a fast-food sandwich
restaurant chain throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Dewitt Weatherby, Esq.
      W. Pitts Carr, Esq.
      W. PITTS CARR AND ASSOCIATES, PC
      Building 10
      4200 Northside Parkway, N.W.
      Atlanta, GA 30327
      Telephone: (404) 442-9000
      E-mail: aweatherby@wpcarr.com
              pcarr@wpcarr.com

         - and -

      Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, P.L.L.P.
      1100 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      E-mail: charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com


ARES CAPITAL: American Capital Shareholders Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of American Capital, Ltd., have filed a second
consolidated amended putative shareholder class action complaint,
according to Ares Capital Corporation's February 22, 2017, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On January 3, 2017, the Company completed its acquisition of
American Capital, Ltd. pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated May 23, 2016, among the
Company, American Capital, Orion Acquisition Sub, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Company, Ivy Hill Asset Management, L.P.
("IHAM"), Ivy Hill Asset Management GP, LLC, in its capacity as
general partner of IHAM, American Capital Asset Management, LLC, a
wholly owned portfolio company of American Capital, and solely for
the limited purposes set forth therein, Ares Capital Management.
To effect the acquisition, (i) Acquisition Sub merged with and
into American Capital, with American Capital remaining as the
surviving entity in such merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Ares Capital and (ii) ACAM merged with and into IHAM, with IHAM
remaining as the surviving entity in such merger as a wholly owned
portfolio company of the Company. Immediately following the
Mergers, American Capital converted into a Delaware limited
liability company and withdrew its election as a business
development company.

On or about February 10, 2017, shareholders of American Capital
filed a second consolidated amended putative shareholder class
action complaint allegedly on behalf of holders of the common
stock of American Capital against the former members of American
Capital's board of directors and certain former American Capital
officers, as well as Elliott Management Corporation,

Ares Capital Corporation, a Maryland corporation, is a specialty
finance company that is a closed-end, non-diversified management
investment company.  The Company has elected to be regulated as a
business development company under the Investment Company Act of
1940.


ARES CAPITAL: Elliott Entities Consolidated Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated shareholder lawsuit initiated by the Elliott
Entities remains pending, Ares Capital Corporation said in its
Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On January 3, 2017, the Company completed its acquisition of
American Capital, Ltd. pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated May 23, 2016, among the
Company, American Capital, Orion Acquisition Sub, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Company, Ivy Hill Asset Management, L.P.
("IHAM"), Ivy Hill Asset Management GP, LLC, in its capacity as
general partner of IHAM, American Capital Asset Management, LLC, a
wholly owned portfolio company of American Capital, and solely for
the limited purposes set forth therein, Ares Capital Management.
To effect the acquisition, (i) Acquisition Sub merged with and
into American Capital, with American Capital remaining as the
surviving entity in such merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Ares Capital and (ii) ACAM merged with and into IHAM, with IHAM
remaining as the surviving entity in such merger as a wholly owned
portfolio company of the Company. Immediately following the
Mergers, American Capital converted into a Delaware limited
liability company and withdrew its election as a business
development company.

Elliott Associates, L.P., Elliott International, L.P. and Elliott
International Capital Advisors Inc. (collectively "Elliott") in
the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland challenging the
American Capital Acquisition. This action is a consolidation of
putative shareholder complaints filed against the directors of
American Capital on June 24, 2016, July 12, 2016, July 21, 2016
and July 27, 2016, which were consolidated and in which an amended
consolidated putative shareholder class action complaint was filed
on August 18, 2016. The action alleges that the directors,
officers and Elliott failed to adequately discharge their
fiduciary duties to the public shareholders of American Capital by
hastily commencing a sales process due to the board's manipulation
by Elliott.

In the alternative, the complaint alleges Elliott aided and
abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by the American Capital
directors and officers. The complaint also alleges that the
directors and officers failed to obtain for the shareholders the
highest value available in the marketplace for their shares in the
American Capital Acquisition. The complaint further alleges that
the merger was the product of a flawed sales process due to
Elliott's continued manipulation, the use of deal protection
devices in the American Capital Acquisition that precluded other
bidders from making a higher offer to American Capital and the
directors' conflicts of interest due to special benefits,
including the full vesting of American Capital stock options and
incentive awards or golden parachutes the directors received upon
consummation of the proposed merger.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement, which was filed with the SEC on July 20, 2016 and
includes a joint proxy statement to American Capital's
shareholders, is materially false and misleading because it omits
material information concerning the financial and procedural
fairness of the American Capital Acquisition. The complaint seeks
to recover compensatory damages for all losses resulting from the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and waste.

The Company assumed this legal proceeding in connection with the
American Capital Acquisition and believes that these claims are
without merit. The defendants' response to the second consolidated
amended complaint was due on March 3, 2017.

Ares Capital Corporation, a Maryland corporation, is a specialty
finance company that is a closed-end, non-diversified management
investment company.  The Company has elected to be regulated as a
business development company under the Investment Company Act of
1940.


AVON PRODUCTS: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
issued a final approval order approving Avon Products, Inc.'s
settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

Between December 23, 2014 and March 12, 2015, two purported class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York -- Poovathur v. Avon Products, Inc.,
et al. (No. 14-CV-10083) and McCoy et al. v. Avon Products, Inc.,
et al. (No. 15-CV-01828) asserting claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") against the Company, the
Plan's administrator, benefits board and investment committee, and
certain individuals alleged to have served as Plan fiduciaries. On
April 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and
recaptioned the consolidated case as In re 2014 Avon Products,
Inc. ERISA Litigation, (No. 14-CV-10083). On May 8, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, asserting claims for
alleged breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor under
ERISA on behalf of a purported class of participants in and
beneficiaries of the Plan who invested in and/or held shares of
the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31, 2006 and May 1, 2014
and between December 14, 2011 and the present.  Plaintiffs seek,
inter alia, certain monetary relief, damages, and declaratory,
injunctive and other equitable relief. On July 9, 2015, Defendants
moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

The parties reached an agreement on a settlement of this class
action. The terms of settlement include releases by members of the
class of claims against the Company and the individual defendants
and payment of approximately $6. Approximately $5 of the
settlement was paid by the Company's insurer and approximately $1
was paid by the Company (which represented the remaining
deductible under the Company's applicable insurance policy). On
June 7, 2016, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and scheduled a hearing to consider final approval for
October 11, 2016. On January 3, 2017, the Court issued a Final
Approval Order approving the settlement.

Avon Products, Inc., is a global manufacturer and marketer of
beauty and related products.  The Company commenced operations in
1886 and was incorporated in the State of New York on January 27,
1916.  The Company conducts its business in the highly competitive
beauty industry and compete against other consumer packaged goods
and direct-selling companies to create, manufacture and market
beauty and non-beauty-related products.


BENIHANA INC: Calif. Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Wilkes"
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the case captioned BRENDAN WILKES, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public, Plaintiff, v. BENIHANA, INC., BENIHANA NATIONAL CORP.,
BENIHANA CARLSBAD CORP., and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
16cv2219 JM (DHB) (S.D. Cal.).

Benihana Inc., Benihana National Corp., and Benihana Carlsbad
Corp. operates the nation's largest chain of Japanese teppanyaki
and sushi restaurants, with seventy-three restaurants nationwide,
including seventeen in California and two in San Diego County.
Benihana had a restaurant in Carlsbad, California and had this
tip-pooling policy were Benihana collects all tips left by
customers and pays out 8.5% of teppan sales to the teppan chef, 4%
of sushi sales to the sushi chef, 4.5% of liquor, beer, and wine
sales to the bartender and 1% of teppan and sushi sales to the
busser.

Brendan Wilkes is a former server at a Benihana restaurant in
Carlsbad, California. He held that position from July 2015 to June
2016. On July 19, 2016 Wilkes filed a first amended class action
complaint in San Diego Superior Court. On September 1, 2016,
Benihana removed the case to the Southern District of California
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. Shortly thereafter,
Wilkes filed a second amended complaint and alleged conversion,
failure to maintain accurate records and provide accurate itemized
wage statements, violations of California Business & Professions
Code section 17200 and for penalties under California's Private
Attorneys General Act, as his causes of action. All four causes of
action stemmed from Benihana's purportedly unlawful tip-pooling
policy. Wilkes alleged that the policy was improper in a number of
ways, including that it allowed Benihana to pay non-servers' wages
using servers' tips.

Benihana moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure
to state a claim, were the court dismissed the second cause of
action, but declined to dismiss the first, third, and fourth
causes of action. The court found that such conduct by Benihana at
least plausibly violates California Labor Code section 351, thus
supporting plaintiff's claims for conversion, violation of section
17200, and PAGA penalties.

Plaintiff filed the third amended complaint on January 18, 2017,
on behalf of himself and a putative class of current and former
servers who, within the previous four years, have been required to
abide by the policy, a group that exceeds 1,000 individuals. The
third amended complaint once again centers on the policy, alleging
three causes of action: (1) conversion; (2) violations of section
17200; and (3) PAGA penalties. But plaintiff omitted allegations
from his third amended complaint that Benihana makes up the
shortfall when tips are insufficient to defray the percentage wage
payments owed to chefs, bartenders, and bussers. Instead, he
alleged that the percentage payments to non-servers are "paid from
the tip pool first if funds are available.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended class
action complaint for failure to state a claim.

Judge Miller granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice
and without leave to amend. Judge Miller observed that although
the policy may not be perfect, plaintiff does not allege that it
has ever left him without tips after a shift, and it does not
require servers to go into their own pocket for contributions.
Absent this sort of obvious unfairness, the court is in no better
position than Benihana to dictate how the policy should operate,
and attempting to do so would implicate serious policy concerns.
The court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim that
the policy violates section 351 on the basis of unfairness.

A copy of Judge Miller's order dated February 28, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/PLvzy9 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff, represented by Kyle M. Van Dyke --
kvandyke@vandykelaw.net -- at Van Dyke Law

Defendants, represented by Alison Jacqueline Cubre --
acubre@littler.com -- Dawn S. Fonseca -- dfonseca@littler.com --
Robert L. Zaletel -- rzaletel@littler.com -- Michael E. Brewer --
mbrewer@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, PC.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Del. Court Denies Bids for Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware denied the parties' cross
motions in the case titled IN RE ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY L.P.
UNITHOLDER LITIGATION, Cons. C.A. No. 12197-VCG (Del. Ch.).

Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., or ETE is a master limited
partnership organized under Delaware law, with its principal
office in Dallas, Texas. ETE is in the business of energy
pipelines. ETE is managed by its General Partner, LE GP, LLC and
its board of directors.

Defendant LE GP is a Delaware limited liability company and the
General Partner of ETE. LE GP is a party to the Limited
Partnership Agreement or the LPA in its capacity as General
Partner. Non-party The Williams Companies, Inc. is an energy
infrastructure company incorporated in Delaware, with its
principal offices in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Williams' holdings include
pipelines and other energy service related assets. Williams was
the counterparty to a merger which was abandoned in June, 2016.
Non-party Energy Transfer Corporation LP or ETC is a Delaware
limited partnership. ETC was a party to the Williams merger and
non-party Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. is a Delaware master
limited partnership with its principal offices in Dallas, Texas.

Lead plaintiffs, Lee Levine and Chester County Employee's
Retirement Fund, have at all relevant times been common
unitholders of ETE. The plaintiffs are suing both individually and
as a class on behalf of the non-participating common unitholders
of ETE for claims arising out of a March 8, 2016 transaction.

Plaintiff Lee Levine initiated the action on April 12, 2016, and
the matter was expedited shortly thereafter. The action was
consolidated with a similar action on May 3, 2016. Following
discovery, an amended and supplemented verified class action
complaint was filed on August 29, 2016. The compliant pleads four
counts. Count I alleges a breach of Section 6.3 of the LPA against
ETE, LE GP and the unitholder defendants and asserted that the
Rights Distribution and the Convertible Units Distribution were an
extraordinary non-cash distribution made in violation of Section
6.3's requirements that such a distribution be made in accordance
with unitholders' respective percentage interests. Count II
alleges a breach of Section 7.6(f) of the LPA against ETE, LE GP,
and the unitholder defendants and  asserted that ETE, LE GP, and
the unitholder defendants breached 7.6(f)'s requirement that
conflicted transactions be fair and reasonable to the Partnership
because none of the enumerated safe harbors were met and the terms
of the issuance of convertible units were not fair and reasonable.
Count III asserts a claim for breach of the contractual good faith
obligations in making determinations and approvals under Sections
5.8, 7.9(a), 7.9(b), 13.1(d)(i) and 13.1(g) of the LPA against
ETE, LE GP and the director defendants. The plaintiffs assert nine
different theories for count III. Count IV asserts that Amendment
5 was not permitted by Section 7.9(a) of the LPA and thus ETE, LE
GP and the unitholder defendants breached the LPA. The theory of
count IV is that the amendment was a conflict situation and that
by not securing any of the exceptions under Section 7.9, the
amendment is not permitted and the entry into and implementation
of the amendment were in breach of the partnership agreement. The
defendants and the plaintiffs have both moved for partial summary
judgment.

The plaintiffs seek summary judgment on two primary points. First,
the plaintiffs seek summary judgment that the Rights Distribution
and Convertible Units Distribution are invalid because they were
non-pro rata distributions of securities to some limited partners
in their capacity as partners that were not in accordance with
their percentage interests in the partnership. The plaintiffs
argue such distributions were not authorized and violated the LPA.
Second, the plaintiffs seek summary judgment that the defendants
breached the partnership agreement because, in its haste, the LE
GP Board of Directors failed to establish a duly constituted
Conflicts Committee composed of directors who were not also
directors of an affiliate of the General Partner. The plaintiffs
argue that the flaws in the process result in a failure to
establish special approval as defined by the LPA, and that they
are entitled to summary judgment that special approval was not
given.

The defendants seek partial summary judgment on a number of
points. First, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs' claims
against the individual defendants and ETE fail as a matter of law
because plaintiffs' breach of the LPA claims can only be brought
against the General Partner. Second, the defendants assert that
count III fails as a matter of law to the extent it relates to a
breach by the General Partner for approving the Amendment because
Section 13.1(g) forecloses any such claim. Third, the defendants
argue that count IV fails as a matter of law because Section
7.9(a) does not provide a claim for breach as to the Amendment.
The defendants argue Section 7.9(a) is an optional safe harbor
provision that cannot be breached as a matter of law. Finally, the
defendants assert that count I fails as a matter of law because
the Issuance is an issuance of equity securities, not a
distribution subject to Section 6.3 of the LPA.

The Court of Chancery noted that the resulting inquiry presents
mixed questions of law and fact.  Before characterizing the
Issuance as a distribution, it is in itself an undefined term in
the partnership agreement, the court said.  The Court finds it
appropriate to have a full factual record, and therefore defer
that characterization until after trial.  Likewise, although the
plaintiffs have raised significant doubt about the propriety of
the process by which the Conflicts Committee undertook its review
of the Issuance, whether the Issuance qualifies as contractually
fair and reasonable involves factual questions appropriately
addressed upon a full record, the court further held.
Accordingly, the cross-motions for partial summary judgment are
denied.

A copy of the memorandum opinion dated February 28, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/S2N9uy from Leagle.com.

Michael Hanrahan -- MHanrahan@Prickett.com -- Paul A. Fioravanti,
Jr. -- PAFioravanti@Prickett.com -- Samuel L. Closic --
SLClosic@prickett.com -- Eric J. Juray -- EJJuray@prickett.com --
at PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A., Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Rolin P. Bissell -- rbissell@ycst.com -- Elena C. Norman --
enorman@ycst.com -- Tammy L. Mercer -- tmercer@ycst.com --
Benjamin M. Potts -- bpotts@ycst.com -- at CONAWAY STARGATT &
TAYLOR, LLP; Michael C. Holmes -- mholmes@velaw.com -- John C.
Wander -- jwander@velaw.com -- Andrew E. Jackson --
ajackson@velaw.com -- Craig E. Zieminski -- czieminski@velaw.com -
- at VINSON & ELKINS LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Energy Transfer
Equity, L.P., LE GP, LLC, Kelcy L. Warren, John W. McReynolds,
Marshall S. McCrea III, Matthew S. Ramsey, Ted Collins, Jr., K.
Rick Turner, Ray Davis and Richard D. Brannon

David E. Ross -- dross@ramllp.com -- John A. Eakins --
jeakins@ramllp.com -- at ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP; M. Scott
Barnard -- sbarnard@akingump.com -- Michelle Reed --
mreed@akingump.com -- Lauren E. York -- lyork@akingump.com -- at
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, Attorneys for Defendant
William P. Williams


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Has Accrued $2.4-Mil. Settlement in "Sears" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomin' Brands, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 25, 2016, that it agreed to a tentative
class settlement and has accrued a settlement of $2.4 million,
inclusive of legal fees, in the lawsuit filed by David Sears and
Elizabeth Thomas.

In November 2015, David Sears and Elizabeth Thomas, two former
Outback Managers ("Manager Plaintiffs"), sent a demand letter
seeking unpaid overtime compensation on behalf of all Managers and
Kitchen Managers employed at Outback Steakhouse restaurants from
November 2012 to present. The Manager Plaintiffs claim that
Managers were not assigned sufficient management duties to qualify
as exempt from overtime. In December 2016, the Company agreed to a
tentative class settlement for eligible Kitchen Managers and has
accrued a settlement, inclusive of legal fees, of $2.4 million in
fiscal year 2016.

Bloomin' Brands, Inc., is one of the largest casual dining
restaurant companies in the world, with a portfolio of leading,
differentiated restaurant concepts.  The Company has four founder-
inspired concepts: Outback Steakhouse, Carrabba's Italian Grill,
Bonefish Grill and Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar. Our
restaurant concepts range in price point and degree of formality
from casual (Outback Steakhouse and Carrabba's Italian Grill) to
upscale casual (Bonefish Grill) and fine dining (Fleming's Prime
Steakhouse & Wine Bar).  As of December 25, 2016, the Company
owned and operated 1,276 restaurants and franchised 240
restaurants across 48 states, Puerto Rico, Guam and 20 countries.


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Has Paid $3.2-Mil. Settlement in "Cardoza" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomin' Brands, Inc., has paid the $3.2 million settlement in the
lawsuit filed by Cardoza, et al., during the fourth quarter of
2016, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 25, 2016.

On October 4, 2013, two then-current employees (the "Nevada
Plaintiffs") filed a purported collective action lawsuit against
the Company, OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC, and two of its
subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
(Cardoza, et al. v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., et al., Case No.: 2:13-
cv-01820-JAD-NJK). The complaint alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by requiring employees to work off the clock,
complete on-line training without pay, and attend meetings in the
restaurant without pay. The nationwide collective action permitted
all hourly employees in all Outback Steakhouse restaurants to
join. The suit requested an unspecified amount in back pay for the
employees that joined the lawsuit, an equal amount in liquidated
damages, costs, expenses, and attorney's fees. The Nevada
Plaintiffs also filed a companion lawsuit in Nevada state court
alleging that the Company violated the state break time rules.

In November 2015, the Company reached a tentative settlement
agreement resolving all claims and the cost of class
administration for $3.2 million. The Court issued final approval
in November 2016 and the Company subsequently made payment during
the fourth quarter of 2016.

Bloomin' Brands, Inc., is one of the largest casual dining
restaurant companies in the world, with a portfolio of leading,
differentiated restaurant concepts.  The Company has four founder-
inspired concepts: Outback Steakhouse, Carrabba's Italian Grill,
Bonefish Grill and Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar. Our
restaurant concepts range in price point and degree of formality
from casual (Outback Steakhouse and Carrabba's Italian Grill) to
upscale casual (Bonefish Grill) and fine dining (Fleming's Prime
Steakhouse & Wine Bar).  As of December 25, 2016, the Company
owned and operated 1,276 restaurants and franchised 240
restaurants across 48 states, Puerto Rico, Guam and 20 countries.


BOX-N-GO: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bacon" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Adrian Bacon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Box-N-Go, LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and
each of them, Case No. 8:17-cv-00378 (C.D. Cal., March 2, 2017),
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and
pre-recorded voice to deliver a message without prior express
consent of the called party.

Box-N-Go, LLC operates a moving and storage service company in Los
Angeles, California.

Adrian Bacon is a pro se plaintiff.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: "Pettinridge Suit" Joins MDL 2418
-------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: PLAVIX PRODUCTS MDL NO. 3:13-CV-02418-FLW-TJB LIABILITY
AND MARKETING LITIGATION, LINDA PETTINRIDGE, Plaintiff, v.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC, SANOFI US
SERVICES INC., and SANOFI-SYNTHELABO, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-01431 (D.N.J., February 14, 2017), alleges that Linda
Pettinridge suffered personal injuries and incurred other damages
as a result of ingesting the anti-platelet medication Plavix that
was designed, developed, formulated, researched, manufactured,
labeled, packaged, promoted, marketed, distributed, and/or sold by
Defendants.

Defendant, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a pharmaceutical
manufacturing and marketing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
     Jennifer L. Crose, Esq.
     BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
     425 West Airline Highway
     New Orleans, LA 70125
     Phone: (985) 536-1186
     Fax: (985) 536-6445


CAFE CIRCA: Faces "Nelson" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA NELSON, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. CAFE CIRCA, LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability
Company, and MYUNG J. HAN, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:
17-CV-0766 (N.D. Ga., March 2, 2017), was brought for Defendants'
alleged failure to pay minimum wages and overtime to all servers
and bartenders who worked for Defendants within the last three
years, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant, Cafe Circa, is a restaurant/cafe that provides food and
beverage to its customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     191 Peachtree Street NE,
     P.O. Box 57007
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Phone: (404) 965-8811
     Fax: (404) 965'8812
     Email: cleach@forthepeople.com


CAFETASIA INC: Faces "Guaraca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Pascual Nugzhi Guaraca, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Cafetasia Inc. d/b/a Somtum Der, Gramercy
Thai Inc. d/b/a Lantern Thai Kitchen, Namjit Inc. d/b/a Cafetasia,
and Thai Montague, Inc. d/b/a Lantern Thai Kitchen, Sopanut
Sopochana, Kittigron Lirtpanaruk, Phakphoom Sirisuwat, Supanee
Kittmahawong, and Kevin Leapagers, Case No. 1:17-cv-01516
(S.D.N.Y., February 28, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Thai restaurant in New York.

Luis Pascual Nugzhi Guaraca is a pro se plaintiff.


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ehrnfeld" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Ehrnfeld, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Capital Management Services, L.P., Case No.
1:17-cv-01115 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Capital Management Services, L.P. operates a collections agency
that provides delinquent receivables resolutions.

Aaron Ehrnfeld is a pro se plaintiff.


CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA: Summary Ruling in ATE Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district
court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in the
case captioned, MYRON DENNIS BEHM, BURTON J. BROOKS, BOBBY LEE
LANGSTON, DAVID LEON BRODSKY, JEFFREY R. OLSON and GEOFF TATE
SMITH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA and
GATSO USA, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-1031 (Iowa
App.).

The plaintiffs were each issued a Cedar Rapids Automatic Traffic
Enforcement (ATE) Notice of Violation alleging their vehicles were
traveling more than eleven miles per hour over the speed limit on
Interstate 380 (I-380) in the City of Cedar Rapids. The plaintiffs
contested the notices by requesting administrative hearings.
Plaintiffs Behm, Langston, Brodsky, Olson, and Smith were each
determined liable for the alleged speeding violations. Plaintiffs
Olson and Smith paid civil fines of $75 each. Plaintiff Brooks was
found not liable for the alleged speeding violation.

Plaintiffs sued the City of Cedar Rapids (City) and Gatso USA,
Inc. (Gatso), challenging the legitimacy of the ATE system,
arguing the ATE ordinance and its implementation by the City
violate state law in numerous respects. They seek declaratory
relief, claiming the City's ATE system is unconstitutional under
the Equal Protection, Privileges and Immunities, and Due Process
clauses of the Iowa Constitution; is in violation of and preempted
by Iowa law; and constitutes an unlawful delegation of police
power. The petition also asserted a private cause of action
seeking damages under the Iowa Constitution. The suit also sought
damages for unjust enrichment and injunctive relief.

The City and Gatso denied the plaintiffs' allegations and later
filed a motion for summary judgment requesting the court to
dismiss the plaintiffs' suit. The district court granted summary
judgment in favor of the City and Gatso.
On appeal, the vehicle owners argued that (1) their procedural due
process rights under the Iowa Constitution were violated; (2) the
process established by the ordinance unlawfully grants
jurisdiction to an administrative board or hearing officer and is
preempted by Iowa Code sections 602.6101 and 364.22(4), (6); (3)
their substantive due process rights under the Iowa Constitution
were violated based on the violation of their fundamental right to
interstate and intrastate travel; (4) under inclusive enforcement
bears no rational relationship to the interests of safety; (5)
their rights under the Privileges and Immunities clause of the
Iowa Constitution were violated; (6) the City and Gatso have been
"unjustly enriched by the implementation of the unlawful
ordinance;" and (7) a private cause of action under the Iowa
Constitution claiming they were entitled to damages resulting from
the violation of their constitutional rights.
In an Order dated February 22, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/nUKMKO from Leagle.com, the Iowa Court of Appeals
found no error in the district court's grant of summary judgment
in favor of the defendants.

Gatso USA, Inc. is represented by Paul D. Burns, Esq. --
pburns@bradleyriley.com -- and -- Laura M. Hyer, Esq. --
lhyer@bradleyriley.com -- BRADLEY & RILEY P.C.

City of Cedar Rapids is represented by Elizabeth D. Jacobi, Esq. -
- e.jacobi@cedar-rapids.org -- CEDAR RAPIDS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE


CHRISTIAN FUNERAL: Sued in Tennessee Over Insurance Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------
MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY, the Plaintiff, v. CHRISTIAN
FUNERAL DIRECTORS, INC.; JOE JOHNSON, CLEMENTE BUTTS, JEANNIE
WILBURN, RODNEY FIELDS, NORMAN GROVE, LAQUITA JONES, JACQUELYN
BONDS, DANECIA EDWARDS, ERICA WILLIAMS, ELIJAH PARTEE, ELLA
STEWART, JIMMIE H. STEVENS, JR., VICKIE STEVENS, AARON BRIGHT,
REGINA SIMMONS, YANCIE MCCRUISTON, OTTO DAVIS, SR., ANNICE
CROWDER, MICHAEL JAMES, REBECCA WILLIAMS, WILLINE FINLEY, et al.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02103-JTF-cgc (W.D. Tenn., Feb.
16, 2017), asks the Court to judicially declare that the
Massachusetts Bay policies provide no coverage for, and that
Massachusetts Bay has no duty to defend or indemnify in connection
with any emotional distress or mental anguish claims, injuries or
damages in the underlying actions, because all such claims,
injuries and damages accrued after the end of Massachusetts Bay's
final policy period and, accordingly, did not occur during the
Massachusetts Bay policy periods.

The case is a declaratory judgment action pertaining to an actual
controversy over potential insurance coverage under a Business
Owners Insurance Policy issued by Massachusetts Bay to Christian
Funeral Directors for successive policy periods from February 18,
2010 to February 18, 2013.

The Plaintiffs sought class certification for an initial class of
"Tennessee residents who contracted and paid for funeral services
after December 31, 2010, where those services included burial in
[Galilee]." Plaintiffs reserved their right to seek certification
for a subclass of "persons who paid for proper funerals and who
were damaged when the graves and remains of their loved ones were
disturbed and damaged by the Defendants' unlawful and unethical
conduct.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell E. Reviere, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Stewart, Esq.
          RAINEY, KIZER, REVIERE & BELL, P.L.C.
          209 E. Main Street
          P.O. Box 1147
          Jackson, TN 38302 1147
          Telephone: (731) 423 2414
          E-mail: rreviere@raineykizer.com
                  jstewart@raineykizer.com


CLECO CORPORATE: No Briefing Schedule Yet in Merger Case Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a briefing schedule has
not yet been set in an appeal from the dismissal of former
shareholders' claims.

On April 13, 2016, Cleco Holdings completed its merger with Cleco
MergerSub Inc., whereby Merger Sub merged with and into Cleco
Corporation, with Cleco Corporation surviving the Merger, and
Cleco Corporation converting to a limited liability company and
changing its name to Cleco Holdings, as a direct, wholly owned
subsidiary of Cleco Group LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cleco
Partners L.P.

In connection with the Merger, four actions were filed in the
Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and
three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged,
among other things, that the members of the Cleco Corporation's
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing
to the Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and
failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The
petitions also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation,
Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco
Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil
conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The
petitions seek various remedies, including monetary damages, which
includes attorneys' fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:

   * Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed
     October 27, 2014),

   * Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets,
     No. 251,417C (filed October 30, 2014),

   * Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014),
     and

   * L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets,
     No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved
for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion
was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the Court
consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-
lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified
Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Amended Petition). The
consolidated action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco
Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Amended
Petition alleges, among other things, that Cleco Corporation's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders
and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger Agreement
because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to
structure a process through which shareholder value would be
maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of
interest, and failing to disclose material information about the
Merger. The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleges that all
defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended
Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended
Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned as follows:

   * Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed
     November 7, 2014),

   * Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation,
     No. 2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and

   * Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed
     November 21, 2014).

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, bcIMC, and John
Hancock Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services action
names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger
Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as
defendants. On December 11, 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler
action filed an Amended Class Action Petition for Damages. Each
petition alleges, among other things, that members of Cleco
Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because
it allegedly does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure
a process through which shareholder value would be maximized and
engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The
Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also allege that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose
material information about the Merger. Each petition further
alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the
investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors'
breaches of fiduciary duty.

On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each
action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions
pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On January 23, 2015, the Court in
the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants'
declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish. On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen
also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish
so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court
for Rapides Parish.

On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary
injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan
seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of
Shareholders held on February 26, 2015, for approval of the Merger
Agreement. Following the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion. On June 19, 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their
Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action
Petition. This will be considered according to a schedule
established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended
petition on July 24, 2015. Cleco believes that the allegations of
the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has
substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each
of the petitions.

On March 21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated
Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction. On May 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
their Fourth Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition.
This petition eliminated the request for preliminary and permanent
injunction and also named an additional executive officer as a
defendant. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended
Petition. A hearing was held on September 15, 2016. On September
26, 2016, the District Court granted the exceptions filed by Cleco
and dismissed all claims asserted by the former shareholders. The
plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the Louisiana
Third Circuit Court of Appeal on November 9, 2016. A briefing
schedule has not yet been set.

Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC's predecessor was incorporated in
1998, under the laws of the state of Louisiana.  Cleco Holdings is
a public utility holding company, which holds investments in
several subsidiaries, including Cleco Power LLC. Substantially all
of its operations are conducted through Cleco Power.


CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kena Johnson, on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
01147 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Client Services, Inc. operates a debt collection agency with
headquarters in St. Charles, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
      FAGENSON & PUGLISI
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 268-2128
      Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
      E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


COMEX FOOD: Faces "Garcia" Suit Alleging Non-payment of Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA IZAMAR GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. COMEX FOOD SERVICE, INC., a
California corporation; COMEX KC, LLC, a California limited
liability company; COMEX KC, LP, a California limited partnership;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC 652501 (Cal. Super.,
County of Los Angeles, March 2, 2017), Defendants, seeks to
recover, among other things, wages and penalties from alleged
unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime
compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to
pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to
indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses
incurred in discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to maintain required records,
and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

Comex Food Service, Inc. is in the grocery stores business. The
Plaintiff filed the case on behalf of non-exempt employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
     Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
     Christopher Hughes, Esq.
     MATERNLAW GROUP, PC
     1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Phone: (310)531-1900
     Fax: (310) 531-1901


CONCHETTA INC: Faces "Colon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julieann Colon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Conchetta, Inc. d/b/a Club Risque, RT, 413 Inc.
d/b/a Club Risque, Tacony 2008 Inc. d/b/a Club Risque, Connie
Innezzelli, Dean M. Pagano, Ronald Crudele, Theodore Pagano, Jr.,
and Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 2:17-cv-00959-RK (E.D. Penn.,
March 2, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club in
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald D. Wells III, Esq.
      CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
      2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275
      King Of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (610) 822-3700
      Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
      E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com


CONNECTICUT, USA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Britt" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael A. Britt filed an appeal from an order entered
by the District Court on February 8, 2017, relating to the lawsuit
titled Britt v. Garcia, Case No. 10-cv-1854, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).

The appellate case is captioned as Britt v. Garcia, Case No. 17-
505, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Carmen Garcia is an officer of the C.S.S.D. Adult Probation
Administrative of Courts.

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael A. Britt, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, represents himself:

          Michael A. Britt
          CORRIGAN RADGOWSKI CORRECTIONAL CENTER
          986 Norwich-New London Turnpike
          Uncasville, CT 06382

Defendants-Appellees Carmen Garcia, C.S.S.D. Adult Probation
Administrative of Courts in her individual and official
capacities; G4s, Administrative of Courts official capacity; Betsy
Graziano, Bridgeport Department of Mental Health Administrative
Office of Courts individually in her official capacity;
Connecticut State Dept of Correction, Administrative of Courts in
official capacity; and Susan McKinney, Connecticut Valley Hospital
Administrative Office of Courts individually in her official
capacity, are represented by:

          Kimberly P. Massicotte, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120
          Hartford, CT 06141
          Telephone: (860) 808-5318
          Facsimile: (860) 808-5386
          E-mail: Kimberly.Massicotte@po.state.ct.us

Defendant-Appellee Randy Wallace, Connection Inc. C.T.P.S.B.
Administrative of Courts in his individual and official
capacities, are represented by:

          Gabriel Joseph Jiran, Esq.
          SHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP
          1 Constitution Plaza
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 251-5520
          Facsimile: (860) 251-5500
          E-mail: gjiran@goodwin.com

Defendant-Appellee Gary A. Mastronardi, Individually, juris
#307046, represents himself:

          Gary A. Mastronardi, Esq.
          LAW FIRM OF GARY A. MASTRONARDI
          211 State Street
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Telephone: (203) 368-0411

Defendant-Appellee Jesus Ortiz, Jr., Chief of City of Bridgeport
Police Administrative Office of Courts individually in his
official capacity, Badge #65753, is represented by:

          Betsy Ingraham, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF BRIDGEPORT
          999 Broad Street
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Telephone: (203) 576-7647
          Facsimile: (203) 576-8252
          E-mail: betsy.ingraham@bridgeportct.gov


CONNECTICUT, USA: Britt Appeals District Court Ruling to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael A. Britt filed an appeal from a court ruling
relating to the lawsuit styled Britt v. Garcia, Case No. 10-cv-
1854, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
(New Haven).

Carmen Garcia is an officer of the C.S.S.D. Adult Probation
Administrative of Courts.

The nature of suit is stated as civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Britt v. Garcia, Case No. 17-
555, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael A. Britt, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, represents himself:

          Michael A. Britt
          CORRIGAN RADGOWSKI CORRECTIONAL CENTER
          986 Norwich-New London Turnpike
          Uncasville, CT 06382

Defendants-Appellees Carmen Garcia, C.S.S.D. Adult Probation
Administrative of Courts in her individual and official
capacities; G4s, Administrative of Courts official capacity; Betsy
Graziano, Bridgeport Department of Mental Health Administrative
Office of Courts individually in her official capacity;
Connecticut State Dept of Correction, Administrative of Courts in
official capacity; and Susan McKinney, Connecticut Valley Hospital
Administrative Office of Courts individually in her official
capacity, are represented by:

          Kimberly P. Massicotte, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120
          Hartford, CT 06141
          Telephone: (860) 808-5318
          Facsimile: (860) 808-5386
          E-mail: Kimberly.Massicotte@po.state.ct.us

Defendant-Appellee Randy Wallace, Connection Inc. C.T.P.S.B.
Administrative of Courts in his individual and official
capacities, are represented by:

          Gabriel Joseph Jiran, Esq.
          SHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP
          1 Constitution Plaza
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 251-5520
          Facsimile: (860) 251-5500
          E-mail: gjiran@goodwin.com

Defendant-Appellee Gary A. Mastronardi, Individually, juris
#307046, represents himself:

          Gary A. Mastronardi, Esq.
          LAW FIRM OF GARY A. MASTRONARDI
          211 State Street
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Telephone: (203) 368-0411

Defendant-Appellee Jesus Ortiz, Jr., Chief of City of Bridgeport
Police Administrative Office of Courts individually in his
official capacity, Badge #65753, is represented by:

          Betsy Ingraham, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF BRIDGEPORT
          999 Broad Street
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Telephone: (203) 576-7647
          Facsimile: (203) 576-8252
          E-mail: betsy.ingraham@bridgeportct.gov


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Court Flips Class Cert. in "Strack" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's
certification of a "hybrid" class in the lawsuit initiated by
Billy J. Strack and Daniela A. Renner, and remanded the case for
further proceedings, according to Continental Resources, Inc.'s
February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
District Court of Blaine county, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and
Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on
behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company.
The Petition alleged the Company improperly deducted post-
production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other
royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells
located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims,
including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees
on behalf of the proposed class. On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs
filed an Amended Petition that did not add any substantive claims,
but sought a "hybrid class action" in which they sought
certification of certain claims for injunctive relief, reserving
the right to seek a further class certification on money damages
in the future.

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Class Certification on
January 9, 2015, that modified the proposed class to royalty
owners in Oklahoma production from July 1, 1993, to the present
(instead of 1980 to the present) and sought certification of over
45 separate "issues" for injunctive or declaratory relief, again,
reserving the right to seek a further class certification of money
damages in the future. The Company responded to the petition, its
amendment, and the motions for class certification denying the
allegations and raising a number of affirmative defenses and legal
arguments to each of the claims and filings. Certain discovery was
undertaken and the "hybrid" motion was briefed by plaintiffs and
the Company. A hearing on the "hybrid" class certification was
held on June 1 and 2, 2015. On June 11, 2015, the trial court
certified a "hybrid" class as requested by plaintiffs. The Company
appealed the trial court's class certification order.

On February 8, 2017, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial
court's ruling on certification and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

The Company says it is not currently able to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the
ultimate resolution of the action will have on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the
preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of
legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties
with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and
defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of
the properties and agreements involved, the production years
involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter. It is
reasonably possible one or more events may occur in the near term
that could impact the Company's ability to estimate the potential
effect this matter could have, if any, on its financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

Plaintiffs have alleged underpayments in excess of $200 million
that they may claim as damages, which may increase with the
passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of
interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes the
case meets the requirements for a class action and continues to
vigorously defend the case. An unsuccessful mediation was
conducted on December 7, 2015. The parties continue to negotiate a
possible resolution to the case. However, it is unclear and
unforeseeable whether the parties' efforts will result in
settlement and the Company will continue to defend the case on all
merits and certification issues and, absent settlement, intends to
defend the case to a final judgment.

Continental Resources, Inc., is an independent crude oil and
natural gas company with properties in the North, South and East
regions of the United States.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid for Prelim OK of "Thompson" Deal Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DOUGLAS THOMPSON on behalf of himself,
others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants,
Case No. 14-cv-2778-CAB-WVG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cathy Ann
Bencivengo of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Plaintiff Douglas Thompson is a former truck driver for Defendant
Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco).  On October 17, 2014,
Thompson filed a class action complaint in the San Diego County
Superior Court asserting eleven claims under California's labor
and unfair competition laws. He alleged Costco failed to properly
provide meal and rest periods and to properly compensate its truck
drivers.  Costco removed the lawsuit on November 20, 2014, and
then filed a motion to dismiss.

On February 10, 2015, Thompson filed a Second Amended Complaint
that further narrowed the focus of the complaint, including
limiting the class to California truck drivers. The SAC asserted
seven claims under California law: (1) Wage Theft/Time-Shaving;
(2) Failure to pay overtime; (3) Failure to provide meal periods;
(4) Failure to provide rest periods; (5) Failure to pay
compensation for all time worked; (6) Waiting time penalties; and
(7) Violation of California's unfair competition law, California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.

After conducting some discovery, the parties participated in a
private mediation on March 11, 2016, that resulted in a Memorandum
of Understanding. The Settlement Agreement requires Costco to pay
a gross settlement amount of $2,000,000, allocated as follows:
$1,308,000 to the settlement members for their claims; $5,000 as
an incentive award for Thompson; $660,000 to Plaintiff's counsel;
$10,000 to settlement of PAGA claims; and $17,000 to the CPT
Group, Inc., the Class Administrator, for administration costs.
The Agreement estimates 882 class members, meaning that each class
member will receive an average of $1,483 from the gross settlement
amount based on the agreed upon allocation.

Plaintiff then filed a Third Amended Complaint adding claims for
unpaid wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), a claim for penalties under California Labor Code
section 226, and a claim under the Private Attorney General Act of
2004 (PAGA).

On December 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

In an Order dated February 22, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/PQ3lnM from Leagle.com, Judge Bencivengo concluded
that counsel's inclusion of the FLSA claim in the TAC after having
reached the conclusion that it was worth nothing violates Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11(b)(2), which provides that "[b]y presenting to the
court a pleading . . . an attorney . . . certifies that to the
best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed
after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . the
claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending,
modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law."

Accordingly, Judge Bencivengo directed the Plaintiff to file a
renewed motion for preliminary approval on or before March 20,
2017.  David Mara and the Turley Law Firm, APLC, are directed to
show cause in writing why the Court should not impose an
appropriate sanction for a violation of Rule 11 by including the
FLSA claim in the TAC.

Douglas Thompson is represented by Ray Padilla, Esq. --
rpadilla@turleylawfirm.com -- William D. Turley, Esq. --
bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- Jill M. Vecchi, Esq. --
jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com -- and -- David Mara, Esq. --
dmara@turleylawfirm.com -- THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
Costco Wholesale Corporation is represented by David D. Kadue,
Esq. -- dkadue@seyfarth.com -- Emily Elizabeth Schroeder, Esq. --
eschroeder@seyfarth.com -- Kenwood C. Youmans, Esq. --
kyoumans@seyfarth.com -- kyoumans@seyfarth.com -- and -- Timothy
M. Rusche, Esq. -- trusche@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP


COTY INC: Faces "Bowens" Class Suit in Mid. Dist. Ala.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Coty, Inc., The
Procter & Gamble Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing
Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Distributing, L.L.C., and
Procter & Gamble Hair Care, L.L.C.

The case is captioned Carrie Bowens, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Coty, Inc., The Procter & Gamble
Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
The Procter & Gamble Distributing, L.L.C., and Procter & Gamble
Hair Care, L.L.C., Case No. 2:17-cv-00118-TFM (M.D. Ala., March 1,
2017).

Coty, Inc. is a beauty products manufacturer based in New York.

The Procter & Gamble Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble
Manufacturing Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Distributing,
L.L.C., and Procter & Gamble Hair Care, L.L.C. is a consumer goods
corporation headquartered in downtown Cincinnati, Ohio, that
specializes in a wide range of cleaning agents, personal care and
hygienic products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandy Lee Robertson, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, L.L.C.
      2224 First Ave N
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 326-3336
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      E-mail: brandy@hgdlawfirm.com
              lewis@hgdlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Joseph Luther Tucker, Esq.
      Kenneth Stephen Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON AND TUCKER, P.C.
      2229 1st Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 252-3535
      Facsimile: (205) 252-3536
      E-mail: josh@jacksonandtucker.com
              steve@jacksonandtucker.com


CYNOSURE INC: Gusinsky Trust Files Suit Over Merger with Hologic
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REV. TRUST, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CYNOSURE, INC.,
MICHAEL R. DAVIN, WILLIAM O. FLANNERY, BRIAN M. BAREFOOT, ETTORE
V. BIAGIONI, MARINA HATSOPOULOS, THOMAS H. ROBINSON, HOLOGIC,
INC., and MINUTEMAN MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-10338-DJC (D. Mass., March 1, 2017), alleges that the
Solicitation/Recommendation for the acquisition of Cynosure, Inc.
by Hologic, Inc. omits material information in violation of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. The tender offer for the
transaction is currently scheduled to expire on March 21, 2017.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
Cynosure will receive $66.00 in cash for each share of Cynosure
common stock.

The complaint says the Solicitation Statement omits material
information regarding Cynosure's financial projections and the
financial analyses performed by financial advisor, Leerink
Partners LLC in support of its so-called fairness opinion; omits
material information regarding the background of the Proposed
Transaction; and omits material information regarding potential
conflicts of interest of Leerink.

Cynosure develops, manufactures, and markets aesthetic treatment
systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Phone: (484) 324-6800

        - and -

     Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
     MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
     18 Grove Street, Suite 5
     Wellesley, MA 02482
     Phone: (781) 453-0100


DEAN FOODS: March 28 Trial in Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company awaits the March 28, 2017 trial presently
scheduled in the antitrust action pending in Tennessee, according
to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "A putative class action antitrust complaint
(the "retailer action") was filed against Dean Foods and other
milk processors on August 9, 2007 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege
generally that we, either acting alone or in conjunction with
others in the milk industry, lessened competition in the
Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A
milk to retail outlets and other customers. Plaintiffs further
allege that the defendants' conduct artificially inflated
wholesale prices paid by direct milk purchasers. In March 2012,
the district court granted summary judgment in favor of
defendants, including the Company, as to all counts then
remaining. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision, and
in January 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment as to one of the
five original counts in the Tennessee retailer action. Following
the Sixth Circuit's denial of our request to reconsider the case
en banc, the Company petitioned the Supreme Court of the United
States for review. On November 17, 2014, the Supreme Court denied
our petition and the case returned to the district court."

"On January 19, 2016, the district court granted summary judgment
to defendants on claims accruing after May 8, 2009. On January 25,
2016, the district court denied summary judgment in other respects
and denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On February
8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the
district court's order denying class certification. That petition
was denied by the Sixth Circuit on June 14, 2016. On March 30,
2016, the district court issued an order holding that the case
will be judged under an antitrust legal doctrine known as the rule
of reason."

"The case is presently scheduled for trial on March 28, 2017.
Plaintiffs claim damages in the amount of $57 million from Dean
Foods. If plaintiffs were to prevail, any damage award would be
trebled as a matter of law. In addition, if plaintiffs were to
prevail, they would be entitled to an award of their reasonable
attorneys' fees."

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to plaintiffs'
claims in the retailer action and intends to defend itself
vigorously at trial. Based on the Company's current assessment and
because at this time it is not possible to predict the outcome of
this matter, the Company has not established a reserve for this
litigation.

Dean Foods Company is a leading food and beverage company and the
largest processor and direct-to-store distributor of fresh fluid
milk and other dairy and dairy case products in the United States,
with a vision to be the most admired and trusted provider of
wholesome, great-tasting dairy products at every occasion.  The
Company manufactures, markets and distributes a wide variety of
branded and private label dairy and dairy case products, including
fluid milk, ice cream, cultured dairy products, creamers, ice
cream mix and other dairy products to retailers, distributors,
foodservice outlets, educational institutions and governmental
entities across the United States.


DISH NETWORK: TCPA Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the lawsuit alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act remains
pending.

The Company said: "On March 25, 2009, our wholly-owned subsidiary
DISH Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United
States Attorney General and several states in the United States
District Court for the Central District of Illinois (the "FTC
Action"), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") and the Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), as well as
analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws.  The
plaintiffs allege that we, directly and through certain
independent third-party retailers and their affiliates, committed
certain telemarketing violations.  On December 23, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, which indicated
for the first time that the state plaintiffs were seeking civil
penalties and damages of approximately $270 million and that the
federal plaintiff was seeking an unspecified amount of civil
penalties (which could substantially exceed the civil penalties
and damages being sought by the state plaintiffs).  The plaintiffs
were also seeking injunctive relief that if granted would, among
other things, enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly
or indirectly through authorized telemarketers or independent
third-party retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing
calls to market or promote its goods or services for five years,
and enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales
from certain existing independent third-party retailers and from
certain new independent third-party retailers, except under
certain circumstances.  We also filed a motion for summary
judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims.  On December 12, 2014,
the Court issued its opinion with respect to the parties' summary
judgment motions.  The Court found that DISH Network L.L.C. is
entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to one claim in
the action.  In addition, the Court found that the plaintiffs are
entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to ten claims in
the action, which includes, among other things, findings by the
Court establishing DISH Network L.L.C.'s liability for a
substantial amount of the alleged outbound telemarketing calls by
DISH Network L.L.C. and certain of its independent third-party
retailers that were the subject of the plaintiffs' motion.  The
Court did not issue any injunctive relief and did not make any
determination on civil penalties or damages, ruling instead that
the scope of any injunctive relief and the amount of any civil
penalties or damages are questions for trial."

"In pre-trial disclosures, the federal plaintiff indicated that it
intended to seek up to $900 million in alleged civil penalties,
and the state plaintiffs indicated that they intended to seek as
much as $23.5 billion in alleged civil penalties and damages.  The
plaintiffs also modified their request for injunctive relief.
Their requested injunction, if granted, would enjoin DISH Network
L.L.C. from placing outbound telemarketing calls unless and until:
(i) DISH Network L.L.C. hires a third-party consulting
organization to perform a review of its call center operations;
(ii) such third-party consulting organization submits a
telemarketing compliance plan to the Court and the federal
plaintiff; (iii) the Court holds a hearing on the adequacy of the
plan; (iv) if the Court approves the plan, DISH Network L.L.C.
implements the plan and verifies to the Court that it has
implemented the plan; and (v) the Court issues an order permitting
DISH Network L.L.C. to resume placing outbound telemarketing
calls.  The plaintiffs' modified request for injunctive relief, if
granted, would also enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting
customer orders solicited by certain independent third-party
retailers unless and until a similar third-party review and Court
approval process was followed with respect to the telemarketing
activities of its independent third-party retailer base to ensure
compliance with the TSR."

"The first phase of the bench trial took place January 19, 2016
through February 11, 2016.  In closing briefs, the federal
plaintiff indicated that it still is seeking $900 million in
alleged civil penalties; the California state plaintiff indicated
that it is seeking $100 million in alleged civil penalties and
damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts
sought on its federal law claims); the Ohio state plaintiff
indicated that it is seeking approximately $10 million in alleged
civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition
to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); and the Illinois
and North Carolina state plaintiffs did not state the specific
alleged civil penalties and damages that they are seeking; but the
state plaintiffs have taken the general position that any damages
award less than $1.0 billion (presumably for both federal and
state law claims) would not raise constitutional concerns.  Under
the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, excessive fines may
not be imposed."

"On October 3, 2016, the plaintiffs further modified their request
for injunctive relief and are now seeking, among other things, to
enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly
through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party
retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market
or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH
Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from some or
all existing independent third-party retailers.  The second phase
of the bench trial, which commenced on October 25, 2016 and
concluded on November 2, 2016, covered the plaintiffs' requested
injunctive relief, as well as certain evidence related to the
state plaintiffs' claims."

"We may also from time to time be subject to private civil
litigation alleging telemarketing violations.  For example, a
portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are also the
subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network
L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").  Following a five-day
trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that case found that the
independent third-party retailer was acting as DISH Network
L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue in that
case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400 in
damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA.  The
plaintiff is also seeking enhanced damages under the TCPA for
alleged willful or knowing violations.  The Court will decide
whether there were any willful or knowing violations, and the
Court has discretion to increase the damages by up to three times
for any such violations.  The plaintiffs in the FTC Action have
asserted that the jury verdict in the Krakauer Action preclusively
establishes that the independent third-party retailer at issue in
the Krakauer Action was acting as DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when
it made the calls at issue in the FTC Action, and is otherwise
persuasive evidence that the other independent third-party
retailers at issue in the FTC Action were acting as DISH Network's
L.L.C.'s agents when they made their respective calls at issue in
the FTC Action, that the alleged civil penalties being sought by
the federal and state plaintiffs are reasonable, and that the
calls made by DISH Network L.L.C. and independent third-party
retailers at issue in the FTC Action were made to landline
residential phones.  We have opposed those assertions."

"A ruling requiring us to pay substantial civil penalties and/or
damages and/or enjoining us, whether acting directly or indirectly
through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party
retailers, from the activities described above could have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition and cash flow."

               $20-Mil. Verdict in Krakauer Action

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 14,
2017, a North Carolina jury awarded a $20 million verdict in the
class action lawsuit against Dish Network for violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The trial lasted five days. Dr. Thomas Krakauer, the lead
plaintiff, alleged that Dish was liable for more than 51,00
telemarketing calls placed by a Dish dealer to persons whose
numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry.

The jury found Dish liable for all calls and awarded $400 per
violation of the TCPA.

DISH Network Corporation was organized in 1995 as a corporation
under the laws of the State of Nevada.  The Company started
offering the DISH(R) branded pay-TV service in March 1996 and is
the nation's fourth largest pay-TV provider.  The Company's
principal executive offices are located in Englewood, Colorado.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: "Scranton" Suit Briefing to Continue in 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that briefing is scheduled to
continue through 2017 in the lawsuit commenced by John Scranton.

On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John
Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly
situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private
Attorney General action. The complaint alleged that the Company
misrepresented through its website that it would always
automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or
more on expiration date. Plaintiffs allege violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. The case has been
deemed complex within the meaning of the California Rules of
Court, and a case management conference was held on September 13,
2013. The Company's demurrer and motion to strike the complaint
were granted by order dated December 20, 2013. The Court granted
leave to amend the complaint.

A second amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2014. On March
11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer to the
second amended complaint. On October 20, 2014, the Court sustained
the Company's demurrer, dismissing four counts of the second
amended complaint with prejudice and two counts without prejudice.
The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 10,
2014. The Company filed a third demurrer and motion to strike on
December 12, 2014. By order dated March 18, 2015, the Superior
Court entered a final order sustaining the Company's demurrer on
all remaining claims with prejudice. Final judgment was entered in
the Company's favor on April 8, 2015.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal April 27, 2015. Briefing is
scheduled to continue through 2017.

The Company says it will continue to defend itself vigorously in
this matter.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation is a financial services company that
provides brokerage and related products and services primarily to
individual retail investors under the brand "E*TRADE Financial."
The Company also provides investor-focused banking products,
primarily sweep deposits, to retail investors.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Schwab Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the securities class action lawsuit filed by
Craig L. Schwab has submitted an amended complaint, according to
E*TRADE Financial Corporation's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty
Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as
defendants. The complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a
fiduciary duty and unjustly enriched itself in connection with the
routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and
exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the
Company, and attorneys' fees.

On July 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Craig L.
Schwab, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, naming
E*TRADE Financial Corporation, E*TRADE Securities LLC, and former
Company executives as defendants. The complaint alleges that
E*TRADE violated federal securities laws in connection with the
routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and
exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the
Company, and attorneys' fees.

By stipulation, the Rayner case has been consolidated with the
Schwab case and both matters are now venued in the Southern
District of New York. E*TRADE has moved to dismiss the complaint
in Rayner.

E*TRADE moved to dismiss the Schwab case on January 11, 2017; and
in response, the Schwab plaintiffs submitted an amended Complaint
on February 10, 2017. The amended Schwab complaint asserts only
two claims: violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by
E*TRADE Securities LLC and E*TRADE Financial Corporation; and
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by E*TRADE's two
most recent chief executive officers.

The Company says it will continue to defend itself vigorously in
these matters.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation is a financial services company that
provides brokerage and related products and services primarily to
individual retail investors under the brand "E*TRADE Financial."
The Company also provides investor-focused banking products,
primarily sweep deposits, to retail investors.


EQUIFAX INC: Settlement Documents in FCRA Suit Due March 17
-----------------------------------------------------------
The deadline to file the settlement documents in the consolidated
lawsuit pending in California is on March 17, 2017, Equifax Inc.
said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al.
v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC,
et al. , plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated federal and
state law (the FCRA, the California Credit Reporting Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law) by failing to follow reasonable
procedures to determine whether credit accounts are discharged in
bankruptcy, including the method for updating the status of an
account following a bankruptcy discharge. On August 20, 2008, the
District Court approved a Settlement Agreement and Release
providing for certain changes in the procedures used by defendants
to record discharges in bankruptcy on consumer credit files. That
settlement resolved claims for injunctive relief, but not
plaintiffs' claims for damages.

On May 7, 2009, the District Court issued an order preliminarily
approving an agreement to settle remaining class claims. The
District Court subsequently deferred final approval of the
settlement and required the settling parties to send a
supplemental notice to those class members who filed a claim and
objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost for the re-
notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs' counsel fee award.
Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on February 15,
2011 and the deadline for this group of settling plaintiffs to
provide additional documentation to support their damage claims or
to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011. On July 15, 2011,
the District Court approved the settlement.

Several objecting plaintiffs subsequently filed notices of appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which, on
April 22, 2013, issued an order vacating the settlement and
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
On January 21, 2014, the District Court denied the objecting
plaintiffs' motion to disqualify counsel for the settling
plaintiffs and granted the motion of counsel for the settling
plaintiffs to be appointed as interim lead class counsel. On March
28, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the District Court's lead counsel appointment.

On January 9, 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied the
objectors' Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

The parties have re-engaged in settlement discussions, including
participation in mediations in August 2016 and November 2016, and
have reached an agreement in principle to again settle the
monetary claims.

The parties are currently drafting the necessary settlement
documents. The deadline to file the settlement documents with the
Court is March 17, 2017 and the Court has scheduled a hearing on
the expected Motion for Preliminary Approval on May 2, 2017.

Equifax Inc. is a global provider of information solutions and
human resources business process outsourcing services for
businesses, governments and consumers.  The Company has a large
and diversified group of clients, including financial
institutions, corporations, governments and individuals. The
Company's products and services are based on comprehensive
databases of consumer and business information derived from
numerous sources including credit, financial assets,
telecommunications and utility payments, employment, income,
demographic and marketing data.


EM CONSULTING: Faces "Yassa" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE YASSA (349 Portico Aisle, Irvine, California 92606
Resident of Orange County) and ERIC ARNICAR (33 High Street
Stuartstown, Pennsylvania 17363) Resident of York County and
DAVID BATES (12610 Jupiter Road, Apartment 327, Dallas, Texas
75238) Resident of Dallas County and MARC BLAZEJAK (1918 Crafton
Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21222) Resident of Baltimore County
and DANIEL DAUSCH (1203 Carsinwood Court, Aberdeen, Maryland
21001) Resident of Harford County and STEVEN WEBSTER, JR. (2516
Wycliffe Road, Parkville, Maryland 21234) Resident of Baltimore
County, Plaintiffs, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Employees v. EM CONSULTING GROUP, INC. T/A
HELIONAUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (1429 Ivy Hill Road, Cockeysville,
Maryland 21030) Serve: David J. Polashuk, R.A. (36 S. Charles
Street, Suite 1504, Baltimore, Maryland 21201) Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00593-JKB (D. Md., March 1, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under Section 16(b) of the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act; unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Maryland Wage and Hour
Law; and unpaid wages, treble damages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

Defendant EM Consulting Group, Inc. is a Maryland-based
Information Technology company that specializes in servicing auto
dealerships.  Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees,
throughout their employment with Defendant, held several different
positions with Helion. These positions are desktop support
engineers/technicians, systems and project engineers/technicians,
lead engineers/technicians, proactive administrators, and network
specialists.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George E. Swegman, Esq.
     Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     E-mail: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
             bdavis@nicholllaw.com


EMTEK PRODUCTS: Faces "Nieto" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO NIETO as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. EMTEK PRODUCTS, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case
No. BC 652704 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, March 2, 2017),
alleges that Plaintiff was, and is, a victim of Defendants'
policies and/or practices; lost money and/or property; and has
been deprived of the rights guaranteed by Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid wages and penalties under
California Business and Professions Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order in addition to seeking declaratory relief
and restitution.

The Defendant designs and manufactures door hardware.  Plaintiff
was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul K. Haines, Esq.
     Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
     Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
     HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
     2274 East Maple Ave.
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Phone: (424) 292-2350
     Fax: (424) 292-2355
     E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
             tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.c
             sblakely@haineslawgroup.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kadeidra Dawson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No.
1:17-cv-01117 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC operates a debt collection agency
in New York.

Kadeidra Dawson is a pro se plaintiff.


ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Florida District Court Dismisses Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit initiated against ERBA Diagnostics, Inc.,
in Florida was dismissed on February 16, 2017, according to the
Company's February 22, 2017, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In December 2015, a class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against ERBA
Diagnostics, Inc. (the "Company") and certain of its current or
former executive officers. The original Complaint was replaced by
an Amended Complaint that added, as defendants, certain other of
the Company's former executive officers, the Company's executive
chairman, the entity that is the Company's majority stockholder
(ERBA Diagnostics Mannheim GmbH), the company that owns the
majority stockholder (Transasia Bio-medicals Ltd.), and the
Company's independent registered public accounting firm at the
time the Amended Complaint was filed (Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.).
The Amended Complaint alleged generally that during the purported
class period of June 14, 2013 through November 20, 2015, the
Company and the other Company-related defendants knowingly or
recklessly disseminated or approved statements about the Company's
financial position and results of operations, business operations,
and prospects that were materially false and misleading or lacked
a reasonable basis.

The Amended Complaint asserted claims for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and sought damages in the amount that the class members
allegedly lost on account of the allegedly false and misleading
statements.

The Company, together with those of its current and former
officers and directors who were named as defendants and served,
filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint; the Company's
former auditors also moved to dismiss.

On February 16, 2017, the court heard oral argument on the motions
to dismiss. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge ruled from
the bench:

   * granting the motions to dismiss;

   * denying the plaintiff's request for permission further to
     amend the Amended Complaint; and

   * dismissing the case.


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Dougherty Wants Dismissal Order Altered
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit initiated by Kevin L. Dougherty ask
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to
alter or amend the dismissal of their case, and for leave to file
a proposed Second Amended Complaint, according to Esperion
Therapeutics, Inc.'s February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On March 1, Defendants Esperion Therapeutics and Tim M. Mayleben
filed a response to the Motion to Alter or Amend the December 27,
2016 Judgment and for Leave to File the Proposed Second Amended
Complaint.

On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company
and Tim Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion
Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). The lawsuit alleges
that the Company and Mr. Mayleben violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by
allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17, 2015, public
statement that the FDA would require a cardiovascular outcomes
trial before approving our lead product candidate. The lawsuit
seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with
an allegedly inflated stock price between August 18, 2015, and
September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 20, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit. On
July 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On December 27, 2016, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the
Company's favor.

On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion
to alter or amend the judgment.

Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., is a lipid management company, a
late-stage pharmaceutical company focused on developing and
commercializing convenient, complementary, cost-effective, once-
daily, oral therapies for the treatment of patients with elevated
LDL-C.  Esperion develops new LDL-C lowering therapies that will
make a substantial impact on reducing global cardiovascular
disease -- the leading cause of death around the world.


ETHICON US: Faces "Diresta" Class Suit in South. Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Ethicon US, LLC
and Johnson & Johnson.  The case is captioned Timothy Diresta,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
Ethicon US, LLC and Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 1:17-cv-01534
(S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2017).

The Defendants are medical devices, pharmaceutical and consumer
packaged goods manufacturers.

Timothy Diresta is a pro se plaintiff.


FACEBOOK INC: Duguid Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Duguid filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Noah Duguid v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00985-
JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
accused Facebook of spamming cellphones and invading people's
privacy with unwanted automated text messages notifying them that
their accounts have supposedly been logged into.  The lawsuit
claims Facebook knowingly violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act with the texts.

The appellate case is captioned as Noah Duguid v. Facebook, Inc.,
Case No. 17-15320, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Noah Duguid's opening brief is due on June 2,
      2017;

   -- Appellee Facebook, Inc.'s answering brief is due on July 3,
      2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant NOAH DUGUID, individually and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com

Defendant-Appellee FACEBOOK, INC., is represented by:

          Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 439-1400
          Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
          E-mail: edeeley@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq.
          Susan E. Engel, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5173
          E-mail: aclubok@kirkland.com
                  susan.engel@kirkland.com


FCA US: Faces "Kelley" Class Suit in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against FCA US LLC, Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Robert Bosch GMBH and Robert Bosch LLC.

The case is captioned Kayla Kelley, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles N.V., Robert Bosch GMBH and Robert Bosch LLC, Case No.
1:17-cv-10342-MLW (D. Mass., March 1, 2017).

FCA US LLC and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. design, engineer,
manufacture, distribute, and sell vehicles primarily in the United
States.

Robert Bosch GMBH and Robert Bosch LLC is an engineering and
electronics company headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
      HALSTROM LAW OFFICES
      132 Boylston Street
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 580-8270
      Facsimile: (617) 583-1905
      E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com


FCNH INC: Nesbitt Appeals D. Colorado Ruling to Tenth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rhonda Nesbitt filed an appeal from a court ruling
relating to the lawsuit styled Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:14-CV-00990-RBJ, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado - Denver.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 17-1084, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing statement is due on March 16, 2017, for Rhonda
      Nesbitt;

   -- Transcript order form is due on March 16, 2017, for David
      Hunter Miller and Adam Murdoch-Kitt Harrison;

   -- Notice of appearance is due on March 16, 2017, for FCNH,
      Inc., Mid-Atlantic Massage Therapy, Inc., Rhonda Nesbitt,
      SEG Cort LLC, Steiner Education Group, Inc., Steiner
      Leisure Ltd. and Virginia Massage Therapy, Inc.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant RHONDA NESBITT, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Rachel Graves, Esq.
          David Hunter Miller, Esq.
          THE SAWAYA LAW FIRM
          1600 Ogden Street
          Denver, CO 80218-0000
          Telephone: (303) 839-1650
          Facsimile: (720) 235-4380
          E-mail: RGraves@sawayalaw.com
                  dmiller@sawayalaw.com

               - and -

          Adam Murdoch-Kitt Harrison, Esq.
          SAWAYA, ROSE & ROAD
          1650 Emerson Street
          Denver, CO 80218-0000
          Telephone: (303) 839-1650

               - and -

          Leon Greenberg, Esq.
          LEON GREENBERG, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          2965 South Jones Boulevard, Suite E-3
          Las Vegas, NV 89146
          Telephone: (702) 383-6085
          Facsimile: (702) 385-1827
          E-mail: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com

Defendants-Appellees FCNH, INC., VIRGINIA MASSAGE THERAPY, INC.,
MID-ATLANTIC MASSAGE THERAPY, INC., STEINER EDUCATION GROUP, INC.,
STEINER LEISURE LTD., and SEG CORT LLC, DBA Steiner Education
Group, are represented by:

          Natalia Ballinger, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE DENVER CITY ATTORNEY
          201 West Colfax Avenue
          Department 1108
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (720) 913-3100
          E-mail: Natalia.ballinger@denvergov.org

               - and -

          Jeffrey Max Lippa, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1200 17th Street, Suite 2400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 572-6500
          Facsimile: (303) 572-6540
          E-mail: LippaJ@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Wozniak, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          3333 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (678) 553-2100
          E-mail: wozniakt@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott David Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT D. SEGAL
          335 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3405
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-6240
          E-mail: ssegal@myhrattorney.com


FEDERAL-MOGUL HOLDINGS: "Sanders" Suit Remains Pending in Mich.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit entitled Sanders v. Federal-
Mogul Holdings Corporation, et al., remains pending in Michigan,
according to Federal-Mogul Holdings LLC's February 22, 2017, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On September 6, 2016, the Company, American Entertainment
Properties Corp., a Delaware corporation ("AEP"), the Company's
parent and a subsidiary of Icahn Enterprises L.P. ("IEP"), and IEH
FM Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Merger
Sub") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and upon the terms
and subject to the conditions thereof, Merger Sub commenced a cash
tender offer (the "Offer) to acquire, subject to the terms and
conditions of the Merger Agreement, all of the issued and
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock, par value $0.01
per share, not already owned by IEP affiliates, for a purchase
price of $9.25 per share, net to the seller in cash, without
interest, less any applicable tax withholding.

On October 5, 2016, a putative class action captioned Sanders v.
Federal-Mogul Holdings Corporation et al., C.A. No. 16-155387 was
filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County of the State of
Michigan against the Company, the Board and the Icahn Defendants
(the "Michigan Action"). The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Board breached its fiduciary duties and that the
Company and the Icahn Defendants aided and abetted the Board's
breaches of its fiduciary duties, as well as alleging certain
material misstatements and omissions in the Schedule 14D-9. The
complaint alleges that, among other things, the then-Offer Price
was unfair and the result of an unfair sales process that included
conflicts of interest.  In addition, the complaint alleges that
the Merger Agreement contains certain allegedly preclusive deal
protection provisions, including a no-solicitation provision, an
information rights provision and a matching rights provision.
Among other things, the complaint sought to enjoin the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, or, in the
event that the transactions were consummated, rescind the
transactions or award rescissory damages, as well as award money
damages and costs, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees.

On February 10, 2017, an order was entered providing that
plaintiff shall have through March 6, 2016, to file his First
Amended Complaint.

The Company believes that the claims in the Michigan Action are
without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

Federal-Mogul Holdings LLC is a limited liability company formed
under the laws of Delaware. On February 14, 2017, Federal-Mogul
Holdings Corporation was converted to a single member limited
liability corporation in the U.S. and changed its name to Federal-
Mogul Holdings LLC.


FEDERAL-MOGUL HOLDINGS: Stockholder Suit Remains Pending in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated lawsuit captioned In re Federal-Mogul Holdings,
Inc. Stockholder Litigation remains pending in Delaware, Federal-
Mogul Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On September 6, 2016, the Company, American Entertainment
Properties Corp., a Delaware corporation ("AEP"), the Company's
parent and a subsidiary of Icahn Enterprises L.P. ("IEP"), and IEH
FM Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Merger
Sub") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and upon the terms
and subject to the conditions thereof, Merger Sub commenced a cash
tender offer (the "Offer) to acquire, subject to the terms and
conditions of the Merger Agreement, all of the issued and
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock, par value $0.01
per share, not already owned by IEP affiliates, for a purchase
price of $9.25 per share, net to the seller in cash, without
interest, less any applicable tax withholding.

On September 29, 2016, September 30, 2016, October 12, 2016 and
October 19, 2016, respectively, four putative class actions,
captioned Skybo v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12790, Lemanchek v.
Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12791, Raul v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A.
No. 12821 and Mercado v. Ninivaggi et al., C.A. No. 12837, were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against
the Board, Icahn Enterprises L.P. and certain of its affiliates,
including Parent and the Offeror (the "Icahn Defendants"), and, in
the case of Raul, the Company. The complaints allege that, among
other things, the Board breached its fiduciary duties by approving
the proposed Merger Agreement, that the Icahn Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the minority stockholders and/or aided
and abetted the Board's breaches of its fiduciary duties, as well
as alleging certain material misstatements and omissions in the
Schedule 14D-9.

The complaints allege that, among other things, the then-Offer
Price was inadequate and, together with that the Merger Agreement,
was the result of a flawed and unfair sales process and conflicts
of interest of the Board and the Special Committee, alleging that
the Special Committee and the Company's management lacked
independence from the Icahn Defendants. In addition, the
complaints allege that the Merger Agreement contains certain
allegedly preclusive deal protection provisions, including a no-
solicitation provision, an information rights provision and a
matching rights provision. Among other things, the complaints
sought to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, as well as award costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. The Raul and Mercado
complaints further seek to rescind the transaction or award
rescissory damages, or (in the case of Raul) award a quasi-
appraisal remedy in the event that the transaction was
consummated, as well as award money damages.

On October 28, 2016, all four actions were consolidated under the
caption In re Federal-Mogul Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
C.A. No. 12790-CB (the "Delaware Action").  On February 3, 2017,
an order was entered requiring plaintiffs to file their amended
complaint by March 6, 2017.

The Company believes that the claims in the Delaware Action are
without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

Federal-Mogul Holdings LLC is a limited liability company formed
under the laws of Delaware. On February 14, 2017, Federal-Mogul
Holdings Corporation was converted to a single member limited
liability corporation in the U.S. and changed its name to Federal-
Mogul Holdings LLC.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Gaines" Suit in N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles N.V. and FCA US LLC.  The case is captioned Jason
Gaines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and FCA US LLC, Case
No. 3:17-cv-01051 (N.D. Cal., February 28, 2017).

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and FCA US LLC operates an
automobile company headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan.

Jason Gaines is a pro se plaintiff.


FIRST CHOICE: "Prochaska" Sues On Behalf of Dental Hygienists
-------------------------------------------------------------
DORETTA PROCHASKA, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. FIRST CHOICE DENTAL GROUP, S.C.
(440 Science Drive, Suite 100, Madison, WI 53711) Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00160 (W.D. Wis., March 1, 2017), alleges that
starting on November 1, 2015, Plaintiff and the other dental
hygienists were paid a percentage of their production; however,
when the dental hygienists worked overtime, Defendant failed to
account for their production pay in their computation of the
overtime rate in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collection Act.

FIRST CHOICE DENTAL GROUP, S.C. is in the business of cosmetic,
and sedation dentistry.  Plaintiff was a dental hygienist.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David C. Zoeller, Esq.
     Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
     HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
     222 West Washington Avenue, Suite 450
     Post Office Box 2155
     Madison, WI 53701-2155
     Phone: (608) 257-0040
     Fax: (608) 256-0236
     Email: dzoeller@hq-law.com
     Email: cmadden@hq-law.com


FIRST SOLAR: Merits Briefing Ongoing in Pension Schemes Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Merits briefing is ongoing on First Solar, Inc.'s appeal in the
class action lawsuit led by the Pension Schemes, according to the
Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the
"Class Action"). The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The
action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will
vigorously defend this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On
December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension
Schemes' motion for class certification, and certified a class
comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008
and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on
February 27, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015.
On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants'
motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for
immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Ninth
Circuit"). First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal
with the Ninth Circuit, and that petition was granted on November
18, 2015. On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the
order granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the
merits briefing schedule.

On December 13, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied the Pension
Schemes' motion. Merits briefing on the appeal is ongoing. The
Arizona District Court has entered a stay of the proceedings in
district court until the appeal is decided.

Given the pending appeal, the need for further expert discovery,
and the uncertainties of trial, the Company says it is not in a
position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate
the range of potential loss, if any.

First Solar, Inc., is a leading global provider of comprehensive
PV solar energy solutions.  The Company designs, manufactures, and
sells PV solar modules with an advanced thin-film semiconductor
technology and also develops, designs, constructs, and sells PV
solar power systems that primarily use the modules the Company
manufactures.  Additionally, the Company provides operations and
maintenance ("O&M") services to system owners that use solar
modules manufactured by the Company or by third-party
manufacturers.


FOGO DE CHAO: Sued over Disabled Inaccessible Establishment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Fogo de Chao 53rd Street, New York LLC, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01202 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to remove architectural and communication
barriers in existing stores, denying equal access to disabled
persons.

Fogo de Chao 53rd Street, New York LLC operates a Brazilian
restaurant located at 40 W 53rd St, New York, NY 10019.

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

FORD MOTOR: Philips Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Philips, Alison Colburn and Jaime Goodman filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled William Philips, et
al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 5:14-cv-02989-LHK, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose.

The appellate case is captioned as William Philips, et al. v. Ford
Motor Company, Case No. 17-15323, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 2,
2017, a federal judge ruled in favor of Ford and said the
Plaintiffs didn't have a case.

According to the lawsuit, the Ford Fusion and Ford Focus have
defective electric power-assisted steering (EPAS) systems that
cause drivers to lose power steering.

Plaintiff William Philips says he wouldn't have purchased his Ford
Fusion, or he wouldn't have paid as much as he did, if Ford would
have admitted problems existed with the power steering system.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by March 24, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on April 24, 2017;

   -- Appellants Alison Colburn, Jaime Goodman and William
      Philips' opening brief is due on June 2, 2017;

   -- Appellee Ford Motor Company's answering brief is due on
      July 3, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM PHILIPS, ALISON COLBURN, and JAIME
GOODMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Mark Philip Pifko, Esq.
          Roland Karim Tellis, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          E-mail: MPifko@baronbudd.com
                  rtellis@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          David Wayne Fernandes, III, Esq.
          San Joaquin Valley Veterans
          4928 E. Clinton Way
          Fresno, CA 93727
          Telephone: (559) 761-7216

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2350
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Mary S. Thomas, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7148
          E-mail: mthomas@gelaw.com

Defendant-Appellee FORD MOTOR COMPANY is represented by:

          Andrew Chang, Esq.
          Amir Nassihi, Esq.
          Michael Kevin Underhill, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          One Montgomery Tower, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1967
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: achang@shb.com
                  anassihi@shb.com
                  kunderhill@shb.com


FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: Kessler, Cohen Named Interim Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr., of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division,
granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motions to
appoint interim lead counsel in the case captioned LORAINE
CAPPELLO, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Cause No. 3:16-CV-290-TLS-MGG (N.D. Ind.).

The consolidated action stems from allegations that defendant,
Franciscan Alliance Inc., et al., improperly claimed the church
plan exemption from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

On April 22, 2016, plaintiffs Jean L. Jewett, Lenore Owens, and
Lori Buksar initiated their ERISA church plan class action against
Franciscan Alliance in the Northern District of Illinois
represented by the law firms of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
and Keller Rohrback, LLP. The Jewett plaintiffs served and
received limited discovery requests, including the Franciscan
Alliance Plan documents, which led them to file their first
amended complaint on August 10, 2016. The Jewett amended complaint
alleges twelve causes of action, including a constitutional claim
based on the Establishment Clause and a claim based on allegations
that Franciscan Alliance improperly required five years of service
before employees would qualify as fully vested participants in the
Plan.

In the meantime, Lorraine Cappello and Jeffrey O'Barski filed
their church plan complaint against Franciscan Alliance in the
Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, on May 12,
2016, represented by the law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Izard, Kindall & Raabe LLP, and Sopko, Nussbaum,
Inabnit & Kaczmarek. The Cappello complaint lacked the
constitutional claim, the vesting claim, and other claims raised
by the Jewett plaintiffs in their amended complaint. The Cappello
plaintiffs engaged in no discovery, but filed their first motion
to appoint interim lead counsel on June 24, 2016, which was denied
by the court without prejudice. On August 9, 2016, with the
expectation that the Jewett plaintiffs were going to agree to
transfer their case, the Cappello plaintiffs filed their second
motion to appoint interim lead counsel. The Cappello plaintiffs'
motion became ripe on September 2, 2016. The Jewett plaintiffs
filed their competing motion for appointment of counsel on
September 16, 2016.

Magistrate Gotsch expresses that at this early stage of
litigation, the court is inclined to appoint co-interim lead class
counsel for plaintiffs and Magistrate Gotsch granted in part and
denied in part plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim lead class
counsel.

The court appoints Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, and Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as co-interim lead class counsel,
with the conditions that co-counsel will inform defendants'
counsel which single attorney will serve as their point of
contact.  Co-counsel must file time records for fees and expenses
incurred in prosecution of the case on a quarterly basis.  Co-
counsel's first billing report should accompany the parties' joint
status report due 21 days after the United States Supreme Court
issues its opinions in Advocate Health Care v. Stapleton, No. 16-
74; St. Peter's Healthcare v. Kaplan, No. 16-86; and Dignity
Health v. Rollins, No. 16-258. The court expects very limited, or
possibly no, billing to be generated while the case is stayed.

A copy of Magistrate Gotsch's opinion and order dated February 28,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/hep38s from Leagle.com.

Lorraine Cappello and Jeffrey O'Barski, Plaintiffs, represented by
Edward W. Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- Julie Siebert-Johnson --
jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- Mark K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- at
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP

Jean L. Jewett, Plaintiff, represented by Julie G. Reiser --
jreiser@cohenmilstein.com -- Karen L. Handorf --
khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- Michelle C. Yau --
myau@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Lynn
A. Toops -- ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- at Cohen & Malad LLP;
Laura R. Gerber -- lgerber@kellerrohrback.com -- Lynn L. Sarko --
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Ron Kilgard --
rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com -- at Keller Rohrback LLP

Lenore R Owens, Lori L Buksar, Plaintiffs, represented by Julie G.
Reiser -- jreiser@cohenmilstein.com -- Karen L. Handorf --
khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- Michelle C. Yau --
myau@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Lynn
A. Toops -- ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- at Cohen & Malad LLP

Defendants, represented by Bradford D. Roth -- broth@cassiday.com
-- Daniel J. Broderick, Jr. -- dbroderick@cassiday.com -- at
Cassiday Schade LLP; Lars C. Golumbic -- lgolumbic@groom.com --
Sarah M. Adams -- sadams@groom.com -- Sean C. Abouchedid --
sabouchedid@groom.com -- at Groom Law Group Chtd; Mark D. Boveri -
- mboveri@kdlegal.com -- Robert A. Anderson --
randerson@kdlegal.com -- at Krieg DeVault LLP; W. Patrick Downes -
- at Franciscan Alliance Inc.

United States of America, Movant, represented by Adam Grogg


FRESH MARKET: Faces "Sherman" Suit Over Sale to Pomegranate
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE S. SHERMAN and BRUCE & CYNTHIA SHERMAN CHARITABLE
FOUNDATION, INC., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE FRESH MARKET, INC., RAY
BERRY, RICHARD A. ANICETTI, MICHAEL CASEY, JEFFREY NAYLOR, RICHARD
NOLL, BOB SASSER, ROBERT SHEARER, MICHAEL TUCCI, STEVEN TANGER,
JANE THOMPSON, APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, APOLLO MANAGEMENT
VIII, L.P., POMEGRANATE HOLDINGS, INC., and POMEGRANATE MERGER
SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00179 (M.D.N.C., March 3,
2017), was filed in connection with the sale of Fresh Market to
Pomegranate Holdings, Inc., an affiliate of Apollo Global
Management, LLC, Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and Pomegranate
Merger Sub, Inc. for an aggregate value of approximately $1.36
billion.

According to the Complaint, Fresh Market's public shareholders
were induced to tender their shares and/or forced to relinquish
their shares in the Company as a result of the Company's
recommendation or statements that omitted or misstated material
information concerning, inter alia, the relationship between
Apollo and the Berry family (founder) and the true value of Fresh
Market.

The Board misled Fresh Market shareholders and concealed the fact
that the Berrys and Apollo were an undisclosed group working
together to buy Fresh Market at the lowest possible price, by
highlighting and advancing false and/or misleading distinctions
regarding R. Berry's relationship with Apollo, says the complaint.

Fresh Market is a specialty grocery retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Ostrander, Esq.
     WILSON RATLEDGE, PLLC
     4600 Marriott Drive, Suite 400
     Raleigh, NC 27612
     Phone: (919) 787-7711
     Fax: (919) 787-7710
     E-mail: mostrander@wrlaw.com

        - and -

     David A.P. Brower, Esq.
     Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
     BROWER PIVEN
     475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 501-9000

        - and -

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


GARMIN LTD: Wins Final Approval of Settlement in "Katz" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted final approval of the settlement in the lawsuit entitled
Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Garmin Ltd. and Garmin International, Inc., the
Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On December 18, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The lead
plaintiff was Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated.  The class of plaintiffs that Andrea Katz
purported to represent includes all individuals who purchased any
model of Forerunner watch in the State of Illinois and the United
States. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Illinois statutory
law. Plaintiff alleged that Forerunner watch bands have an
unacceptable rate of failure in that they detach from the watch.
Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. On
January 29, 2014 the court dismissed the lawsuit without
prejudice.

On January 30, 2014, the plaintiff re-filed the lawsuit with the
same claims for relief as the earlier action and adding an
additional claim for unjust enrichment.  On February 4, 2014, the
court ordered the case to be transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Utah.  The plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the case filed in Illinois and, on March 6,
2014, she refiled the lawsuit in the District Court for the
District of Utah with the same claims, but with additional claims
for violations of the Utah Consumers Sales Practice Act, Lanham
Act, and Utah Truth in Advertising Act.  The relief she requested
is the same.

On March 31, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to transfer the venue of
the Utah action back to the Northern District of Illinois.  On
October 21, 2014, the United States District Court for the
District of Utah denied Garmin's motion to transfer venue. On
December 26, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to dismiss certain counts
of the complaint. On April 16, 2015 the court granted Garmin's
motion in part and dismissed with prejudice (i) Mr. Katz's (but
not Mrs. Katz's) claim for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, (ii) the plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim, (iii) the
plaintiffs' negligence claim and (iv) the plaintiffs' negligent
misrepresentation claim. No class was certified.

The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit in consideration of a
settlement under which Garmin would pay the plaintiff's counsel
$385,000 in attorneys' fees and would repair or replace Forerunner
610 watchbands and watches at no cost provided that a request is
made within twelve months of the date of the final approval of the
settlement by the court.

On November 3, 2016 the court granted final approval of the
settlement.

For over 25 years, Garmin Ltd. and subsidiaries has pioneered new
Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation and wireless devices
and applications that are designed for people who live an active
lifestyle. Garmin serves five primary business units, including
auto, aviation, fitness, marine, and outdoor. Garmin designs,
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes a diverse family
of hand-held, wearable, portable and fixed-mount GPS-enabled
products and other navigation, communications, sensor-based and
information products.


GC SERVICES: "Alderman" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JAMES ALDERMAN, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-14508-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to certify a class defined as:

   "(i) all persons with addresses in the State of Florida (ii)
   to whom initial communication letters that contained the
   language: "If you dispute this balance or the validity of this
   debt, please let us know in writing. If you do not dispute
   this debt in writing within 30 days after you receive this
   letter, we will assume this debt is valid." (iii) were mailed,
   delivered or caused to be served by the Defendant (iv) that
   were not returned undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office (v) in
   an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or
   household purposes owing to Synchrony Bank (vi) during the
   one-year period prior to the filing of the original Complaint
   in this action through the date of certification (the Class)."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint James Alderman as
Class Representative, and appoint Leo W. Desmond, Esq. and Scott
D. Owens, Esq. as Class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ttvkn0Wb

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
          DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 231 9600
          Facsimile: 772.231.0300
          E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          William S. Helfand, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1400
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 659 6767
          Facsimile: (713) 759 6830
          E-mail: Bill.helfand@lewisbrisbois.com


GREENSKY LLC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Alfortish" Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, TODD ALFORTISH, ET AL., v. GREENSKY, LLC,
ET AL., SECTION "B"(1), Case No. 5:16-cv-19 (E.D. La.), Senior
Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana ordered that the motion to
compel arbitration is granted.  The Plaintiffs are directed to
submit all of their claims to arbitration.

The case arises out of the marketing and sale of solar energy
systems.  Several Louisiana solar companies, including Joule, LLC,
Southcoast Solar, A-1 Solar Source, and SunPro (the Solar
Companies), sold energy systems to Todd and Sylvia Alfortish,
James Fincher, and a class of similarly situated individuals
(Plaintiffs). The companies were purportedly actively lobbying
against legislation designed to cap the total amount of solar
energy income tax credits -- legislation that went into effect on
June 19, 2015. Plaintiffs' applications for state income tax
credits were denied because of the legislation.

According to Plaintiffs, the Solar Companies were acting as agents
on behalf of Defendant GreenSky, which gave the companies the
authority to enter into finance agreements and represent the terms
of the loans.

On November 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging a class action against Defendants GreenSky, Synovus, and
SunTrust, on behalf of "all Louisiana residents who entered into
finance agreements (bridge loans) with GreenSky as a result of
purchasing solar energy systems from the Solar Companies and who
were denied the solar energy state income tax credit." Plaintiffs
estimate that the class consists of more than five hundred
households. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs asserted causes of action
under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law (LUTPA); the Truth in Lending Act (TILA); the Louisiana
Consumer Credit Law (LCCL); as well as a common law claim for
unjust enrichment.

Before the Court is Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and
stay proceedings pending arbitration arguing that (1) Plaintiffs'
challenge to the arbitration clause should be decided by the
arbitrator and, alternatively, (2) Plaintiffs' challenge lacks
merit.

In his Order and Reasons dated February 22, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/kT4P46 from Leagle.com, Judge Lemelle found that the
instant dispute including any dispute regarding the enforceability
of the arbitration clause falls within the scope of the
arbitration agreement.

Sylvia Alfortish, et. al are represented by Joshua L. Rubenstein,
Esq. -- jrubenstein@nola-law.com -- SCHEUERMANN& JONES

             -- and --

      Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
      Zachary Landry, Esq.
      MARTZELL&BICKFORD
      338 Lafayette Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel:(504)581-9065

            -- and --

      Calvin Clifford Fayard, Jr., Esq.
      David Blayne Honeycutt, Esq.
      FAYARD& HONEYCUTT
      519 Florida Ave SW,
      Denham Springs, LA 70726
      Tel: (225)664-0304

            -- and --

      Heidi M. Gould, Esq.
      HEIDI MABILE GOULD, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      146 W Livingston Pl
      Metairie, LA 70005-3948
      Tel: (504) 835-7458

GreenSky, LLC, et. al are represented by John Anthony Dunlap, Esq.
-- dunlap@carverdarden.com -- Haley E. Nix, Esq. --
nix@carverdarden.com -- and -- Leann Opotowsky Moses, Esq. --
moses@carverdarden.com -- CARVER, DARDEN, KORETZKY, TESSIER, FINN,
BLOSSMAN&AREAUX -- Barry Goheen, Esq. -- bgoheen@kslaw.com -- and
-- J. Anthony Love, Esq. -- jlove@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING,
LLP


GUESS: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Architectural Barriers
--------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Guess?, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01203 (E.D.N.Y., March
2, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to remove
architectural and communication barriers in existing stores,
denying equal access to disabled persons.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Guess?, Inc. is a
clothing brand and retailer.

Derrick Anderson is a pro se plaintiff.


HANOVER INSURANCE: "Durand" Suit Remains Pending in Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit filed by Jennifer A. Durand
remains pending in Kentucky, according to The Hanover Insurance
Group, Inc.'s February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The
named plaintiff, a former employee of the Company's former life
insurance and annuity business who received a lump sum
distribution from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at
or about the time of her separation from the company, claims that
she and others similarly situated did not receive the appropriate
lump sum distribution because in computing the lump sum, the
Company and the Plan understated the accrued benefit in the
calculation. The plaintiff claims that the Plan underpaid her
distributions and those of similarly situated participants by
failing to pay an additional so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting
the present value of an estimate of future interest credits from
the date of the lump sum distribution to each participant's
retirement age of 65 ("whipsaw claim").

The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009.  Two of the
three new claims set forth in the Amended Complaint were dismissed
by the District Court, which action was upheld in November 2015 by
the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.  The District Court,
however, did allow to stand the portion of the Amended Complaint
which set forth claims against the Company for breach of fiduciary
duty and failure to meet notice requirements arising under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") from the
various interest crediting and lump sum distribution matters of
which plaintiffs complain, but only as to plaintiffs' "whipsaw"
claim that remained in the case. On December 17, 2013, the Court
entered an order certifying a class to bring "whipsaw" and related
breach of fiduciary duty claims consisting of all persons who
received a lump sum distribution between March 1, 1997 and
December 31, 2003. The Company filed a summary judgment motion,
prior to the decision on the appeal, that was based on the statute
of limitations and seeks to dismiss the subclass of plaintiffs who
received lump sum distributions prior to March 13, 2002.  This
summary judgment motion has been stayed pending additional
discovery.

At this time, the Company says it is unable to provide a
reasonable estimate of the potential range of ultimate liability
if the outcome of the suit is unfavorable. The statute of
limitations applicable to the sub-class consisting of all persons
who received lump sum distributions between March 1, 1997 and
March 12, 2002 has not yet been finally determined, and the extent
of potential liability, if any, will depend on this determination.
In addition, assuming for these purposes that the plaintiffs
prevail with respect to claims that benefits accrued or payable
under the Plan were understated, then there are numerous possible
theories and other variables upon which any revised calculation of
benefits as requested under plaintiffs' claims could be based. Any
adverse judgment in this case against the Plan would be expected
to create a liability for the Plan, with resulting effects on the
Plan's assets available to pay benefits. The Company's future
required funding of the Plan could also be impacted by such a
liability.

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., is a holding company organized
as a Delaware corporation in 1995.  The Company's primary business
operations are property and casualty insurance products and
services.  The Company markets its domestic products and services
through independent agents and brokers in the United States and
conduct business internationally through a wholly owned
subsidiary, Chaucer Holdings Limited, which operates through the
Society and Corporation of Lloyd's and is domiciled in the United
Kingdom.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Appeal from Dismissal of "Nichols" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of the case captioned
Nichols v. HealthSouth Corporation remains pending, according to
the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v.
HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs allege that we, some of our
former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a
scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial
position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. This case was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8,
2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9,
2010 to which we responded with a motion to dismiss filed on
December 22, 2010. During a hearing on February 24, 2012,
plaintiffs' counsel indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims
against us. Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended
their complaint to include additional securities fraud claims
against HealthSouth and add several former officers to the
lawsuit."

"On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their
complaint to request certification as a class action. One of those
named officers has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to
federal district court, most recently on December 11, 2012. We
filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state court on
January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal court
remanded the case back to state court. On November 25, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed another amended complaint to assert new
allegations relating to the time period of 1997 to 2002."

"On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds
the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims are derivative
in nature, and the claims are time-barred by the statute of
limitations. On May 26, 2016, the court granted our motion to
dismiss. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case to the
Supreme Court of Alabama on June 28, 2016. The Supreme Court has
not yet scheduled a hearing on the appeal."

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

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself in this
case. Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current
facts and circumstances as the Company understands them, the
nature of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to
date, and the nature and scope of the defense the Company
continues to mount, the Company does not believe an adverse
judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also
not possible to estimate an amount of loss, if any, or range of
possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or
settlement of this case.

HealthSouth Corporation is one of the nation's largest providers
of post-acute healthcare services, offering both facility-based
and home-based post-acute services in 35 states and Puerto Rico
through its network of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, home
health agencies, and hospice agencies. HealthSouth was organized
as a Delaware corporation in February 1984 and its principal
executive offices are located in Birmingham, Alabama.


HERTZ CORP: Bid to Compel in "Margulis" Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Mark Falk of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part
plaintiff's motion to compel in the case captioned DANIEL
MARGULIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 14-1209 (JMV) (D.N.J.).

Daniel Margulis, a New Jersey citizen claims that he was a victim
of the Hertz Corporation's dynamic currency conversion practices
in connection with two car rentals -- one in the United Kingdom
and one in Italy. Margulis commenced a putative class action,
alleging that Hertz is conducting a broad-ranging currency
conversion scheme, labeled dynamic currency conversion, to defraud
its customers who rent vehicles abroad. Plaintiff alleges that
Hertz quotes customer rates for vehicle rentals without including
any currency conversion fee, charges the fee directly to the
customer's credit card, and then falsely claims the customer
specifically chose the currency conversion and subsequent
overcharge. The operative complaint contains claims for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, fraud and (4) violations of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Hertz moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c)
and for failure to join indispensable parties pursuant to Rule
12(b)(7), claiming that Hertz U.K. Ltd. and Hertz Italiana S.r.l.
were necessary parties to the action because they were the
entities that contracted with plaintiff. Defendant also contends
that the subsidiaries, not Hertz, provide DCC service in foreign
countries. On April 30, 2015, the Honorable Madeline C. Arleo,
denied Hertz's Rule 12 motion.

Defendant has withheld a number of emails pursuant to the
attorney-client privilege and the common-interest doctrine.
However, the emails are almost exclusively between and among, not
defendant's employees, but employees of two of defendant's foreign
subsidiaries, Hertz U.K. Ltd. and Hertz Italiana S.r.l., which are
separate corporate entities and not parties to the case. Defendant
claims that withheld documents are protected by its own attorney-
client privilege due to the structure of Hertz's in-house legal
department and in-house counsel's alleged joint representation of
all three companies. Documents withheld on such basis are referred
to as category 1. There is also a category 2. Specifically, some
withheld documents were also shared by employees of the foreign
Hertz companies with employees of a non-party, non-Hertz entity,
Monex Financial Services, Ltd., an Irish company that provides
currency conversion services for Hertz rentals. Defendant contends
sharing documents with Monex is permissible, and does not waive
the attorney-client privilege, because the disclosures occurred
pursuant to New Jersey's version of the common-interest doctrine.

Plaintiff challenged defendant's claims of privilege, arguing that
the attorney-client privilege does not stretch to cover the
situation presented, that corporate form must be respected, and
that the common-interest doctrine does not apply.

Magistrate Falk granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's
motion to compel as the court finds that the first and second
factors of the common-interest question are satisfied in this
case. Whether the third and final factor is satisfied, and thus
whether sharing was permissible, would depend on the particulars
of the specific documents, which have not been properly presented,
the magistrate held. The parties are ordered to meet-and-confer
in-person to resolve disputes with the remaining documents.

A copy of Magistrate Falk's opinion dated February 28, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/gc76aC from Leagle.com.

DANIEL MARGULIS, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI --
JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- at CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C.; ALIAKSANDRA RAMANENKA -- aramanenka@gslawny.com -
- at GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP

THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN D.
TORTORELLA -- jtortorella@khmarino.com -- KEVIN HARRY MARINO --
kmarino@khmarino.com -- at MARINO, TORTORELLA & BOYLE, P.C.


HILL'S PET: Faces "Vanzant" Lawsuit Over Deceptive Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY BLAINE VANZANT, and DANA LAND, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. HILL'S PET
NUTRITION INC.; PETSMART, INC.; MEDICAL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL,
INC. d/b/a BANFIELD PET HOSPITAL; BLUEPEARL VET, LLC, Defendants,
(Ill. Circ., Cook County, March 2, 2017), alleges that Defendants
used deception and misrepresentations and omissions of material
facts in marketing, labeling, and/or selling "prescription" pet
food at above-market prices in violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Defendants manufacture, market, and/or sell one or more lines of
pet food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Forde, Esq.
     Michael K. Forde, Esq.
     Ellen M. Carey, Esq.
     FORDE LAW OFFICES LLP
     111 West Washington Street, Suite 1100
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 641-1441


HOLY REDEEMER: Faces "Snyder" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
KAREN SNYDER, CHERYL ROBINSON-KELLY, BARBARA FREDERICI, AND
KIMBERLY NIEDRIST, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOLY REDEEMER HEALTH SYSTEM
d/b/a/ HOLY REDEEMER HOSPITAL; THE HOLY REDEEMER HEALTH SYSTEM
PENSION PLAN COMMITTEE; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00960-TJS (E.D. Pa., March 2, 2017), alleges that Holy
Redeemer has improperly underfunded the Plan by millions of
dollars, in violation of the mandates of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act. Specifically, for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2013, the Plan was $15.77 million underfunded.

Defendant Holy Redeemer Health System is a 50l(c)(3) non-profit
corporation that does business as Holy Redeemer Hospital.  It is
the employer responsible for maintaining the Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
     Stephen E. Connolly, Esq.
     2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
     King of Prussia, PA 19406
     Phone: 610-822-3700
     Fax: 610-822 3800
     E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
             sconnolly@cwglaw.com

        - and -

     Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
     THE KEHOE LAW FIRM
     Two Penn Center Plaza
     1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Phone: 215 792 6676
     Fax: 215 792 6676
     E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Powell" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Powell v. Huntington National
Bank appealed an order granting Huntington Bancshares
Incorporated's motion for summary judgment, according to the
Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

Huntington is a defendant in a class action filed on October 15,
2013 alleging Huntington charged late fees on mortgage loans in a
method that violated West Virginia law and the loan documents.
Plaintiffs seek statutory civil penalties, compensatory damages
and attorney's fees. Huntington filed a motion for summary
judgment on the plaintiffs' claims, which was granted by the U.S.
District Court on December 28, 2016.  Plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a multi-state diversified
regional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966
and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through The Huntington
National Bank, the Company has 150 years of servicing the
financial needs of its customers.  Through its subsidiaries, the
Company provides full-service commercial and consumer banking
services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing,
recreational vehicle and marine financing, equipment leasing,
investment management, trust services, brokerage services,
insurance service programs, and other financial products and
services.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Final Hearing in Overdraft Suit on June 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing of the global settlement in the
FirstMerit Overdraft Litigation is scheduled for June 2, 2017,
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated said in its Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On August 16, 2016, Huntington completed its acquisition of
FirstMerit Corporation in a stock and cash transaction valued at
approximately $3.7 billion. FirstMerit was a diversified financial
services company headquartered in Akron, Ohio, with operations in
Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Pennsylvania. Post
acquisition, Huntington now operates across an eight-state
Midwestern footprint.

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Pleas against FirstMerit. The complaints were brought as
class actions on behalf of Ohio residents who maintained a
checking account at FirstMerit and who incurred one or more
overdraft fees as a result of the alleged re-sequencing of debit
transactions.

The parties have reached a global settlement for approximately $9
million cash to a common fund plus an additional $7 million in
debt forgiveness. Attorneys' fees will be paid from the fund, with
any remaining funds going to charity. FirstMerit's insurer has
agreed to reimburse Huntington 49% of the approximately $9
million, which totals approximately $4.4 million. The court
preliminarily approved the settlement on December 5, 2016 and the
cash portion of the settlement was funded on December 12, 2016.

The final approval hearing is scheduled for June 2, 2017.

Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a multi-state diversified
regional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966
and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through The Huntington
National Bank, the Company has 150 years of servicing the
financial needs of its customers.  Through its subsidiaries, the
Company provides full-service commercial and consumer banking
services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing,
recreational vehicle and marine financing, equipment leasing,
investment management, trust services, brokerage services,
insurance service programs, and other financial products and
services.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Wins Approval of Merger Suits Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated said in its Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a federal court
approved its settlement of shareholder lawsuits arising from the
FirstMerit merger.

On August 16, 2016, Huntington completed its acquisition of
FirstMerit Corporation in a stock and cash transaction valued at
approximately $3.7 billion. FirstMerit was a diversified financial
services company headquartered in Akron, Ohio, with operations in
Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Pennsylvania. Post
acquisition, Huntington now operates across an eight-state
Midwestern footprint.

Huntington is a defendant in five lawsuits filed in February and
March of 2016 in state and federal courts in Ohio relating to the
FirstMerit merger. The plaintiffs in each case are FirstMerit
shareholders and have filed class action and derivative claims
seeking to enjoin the merger. The parties in the federal court
cases have entered into a tentative settlement. The defendants
made agreed supplemental disclosures in advance of the shareholder
vote in exchange for which plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their
preliminary injunction motion and agreed to a release of all
claims in the federal and state actions.

The parties jointly moved for approval of the settlement by the
federal court, which was granted on February 1, 2017. The
plaintiffs in the state court cases did not join in the
settlement, but their claims will be released in the federal court
settlement.

Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is a multi-state diversified
regional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966
and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through The Huntington
National Bank, the Company has 150 years of servicing the
financial needs of its customers.  Through its subsidiaries, the
Company provides full-service commercial and consumer banking
services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing,
recreational vehicle and marine financing, equipment leasing,
investment management, trust services, brokerage services,
insurance service programs, and other financial products and
services.


IC SYSTEM: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Odette Franco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. IC System, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01154 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 1, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

IC System, Inc. is a nationwide provider of accounts receivable
management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the case captioned, IN RE IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY
LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 15-CV-2514 (JPO)
(S.D.N.Y.).

The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Complaint) in the
action was filed on March 25, 2016, by Plaintiffs against
iDreamSky Technology Limited (IDS), its officers and directors,
and four underwriters (collectively, Defendants). The Complaint
alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5.
The allegations in the Complaint relate to American Depository
Shares (ADSs) issued by IDS in an initial public offering (IPO) on
August 7, 2014. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that IDS failed
to disclose the adverse financial impact of delays in its release
of the game Cookie Run in China and its lack of an adequate third-
party billing platform.

Plaintiffs filed four putative class actions in this Court, naming
as Defendants IDS, its officers and directors (the Individual
Defendants), and four underwriters of IDS's IPO (the Underwriter
Defendants). The Court then consolidated these actions on January
25, 2016, designating Hoong as Lead Plaintiff, and the operative
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on March 25,
2016.

IDS and the Underwriter Defendants separately move to dismiss the
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(1), and 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Section 11 imposes strict liability on
certain participants in a registered securities offering if "any
part of the registration statement contained an untrue statement
of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to
be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not
misleading."

In the Opinion and Order dated February 22, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/qPgIkv from Leagle.com, Judge Oetken dismissed
claims under Section 12(a)(1) because Plaintiffs have not alleged
that unregistered securities were sold and denied dismissal as to
misstatements and omissions because Plaintiffs have adequately
alleged that at the time the relevant statements were made,
Defendants were fully aware of the delays affecting the launch
date of Cookie Run and claims under the Exchange Act because
Plaintiffs have carried their burden of proving Defendants had
access to information, or otherwise failed to check information,
that would have indicated that their public statements were not
accurate.

Defendants are directed to answer Plaintiffs' remaining claims
within twenty-one days of the date of the order.

Michael Rubin, et. al are represented by Mark David Smilow, Esq. -
- msmilow@weisslawllp.com -- and -- Joseph Harry Weiss, Esq. --
jweiss@weisslawllp.com -- WEISS & LURIE -- Joshua Lon Crowell,
Esq. -- jcrowell@glancylaw.com -- GLANCYPRONGAY& MURRAY LLP --
Keith Robert Lorenze, Esq. -- klorenze@rosenlegal.com -- Laurence
Matthew Rosen, Esq. -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- and -- Jacob A.
Goldberg, Esq. -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM,
P.A.

Idreamsky Technology Limited, et. al are represented by Scott D.
Musoff, Esq. -- scott.musoff@skadden.com --and -- Robert Alexander
Fumerton, Esq. -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS,
SLATE,MEAGHER&FLOM LLP

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, et. al are represented by Peter Eric
Kazanoff, Esq. -- pkazanoff@stblaw.com -- and -- Sarah Emily
Phillips, Esq. -- sarah.phillips@stblaw.com -- SIMPSON THACHER &
BARTLETT LLP


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Defends Wisconsin, Tennessee Antitrust Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company continues to defend itself against
antitrust lawsuits pending in Wisconsin and Tennessee, according
to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In June 2016, a lawsuit captioned Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v.
Packaging Corporation of America (W.D. Wis.), was filed in federal
court in Wisconsin. The Ashley Furniture lawsuit closely tracks
the allegations found in the Kleen Products complaint but also
asserts Wisconsin state antitrust claims. Moreover, in January
2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that
International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit
the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to
the present. Plaintiffs in the state court action seek
certification of a class of Tennessee indirect purchasers of
containerboard products, damages and costs, including attorneys'
fees.

No class certification materials have been filed to date in the
Tennessee action.

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

The Company disputes the allegations made and is vigorously
defending each action. However, because the Kleen Products action
is in the pretrial motions stage and the Tennessee and Ashley
Furniture actions are in a preliminary stage, the Company is
unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss.

International Paper Company is a global producer of renewable
fiber-based packaging, pulp and paper products with manufacturing
operations in North America, Latin America, Europe, North Africa,
Asia and Russia.  The Company is a New York corporation,
incorporated in 1941 as the successor to the New York corporation
of the same name organized in 1898.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Suit vs. Containerboard Producers Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit against containerboard
producers, including International Paper Company, remains pending
in Illinois, according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including
International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in
a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen
Products LLC v. International Paper Co. (N.D. Ill.). The complaint
alleges that the defendants, beginning in February 2004 through
November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase
prices of containerboard products. The class is all persons who
purchased containerboard products directly from any defendant for
use or delivery in the United States during the period February
2004 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to recover unspecified
treble damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported
class. Four similar complaints were filed and have been
consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. In March 2015,
the District Court certified a class of direct purchasers of
containerboard products; in June 2015, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted the defendants' petition
to appeal, and on August 4, 2016, affirmed the District Court's
decision on all counts.

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

The Company says it will continue to aggressively defend this
case, including challenges to class certification.

International Paper Company is a global producer of renewable
fiber-based packaging, pulp and paper products with manufacturing
operations in North America, Latin America, Europe, North Africa,
Asia and Russia.  The Company is a New York corporation,
incorporated in 1941 as the successor to the New York corporation
of the same name organized in 1898.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Leiner" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Sweeney filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Stephanie Leiner, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05876, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit resulted in a $5 million settlement, including $1.5
million in attorney fees.  The Plaintiffs have alleged that
Johnson & Johnson's Bedtime Bath baby products did not make babies
as sleepy as the Company claimed.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Leiner, et al. v.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 17-1409, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee STEPHANIE LEINER, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com

Appellant PAMELA SWEENEY represents herself:

          Pamela Sweeney, Esq.
          SWEENEY LEGAL GROUP
          6666 Odana Road
          Madison, WI 53716
          Telephone: (424) 488-4383
          E-mail: pam.sweeney1@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., is
represented by:

          Mark A. Neubauer, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, LLP
          2000 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 843-6300
          Facsimile: (310) 843-6301
          E-mail: mneubauer@cfjblaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hammack Seeks Review of Order in "Leiner" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Hammack Company filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Stephanie Leiner, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05876, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Leiner, et al. v.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 17-1403, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the people
behind a false advertising class action lawsuit that said Johnson
& Johnson's Bedtime Bath baby products did not make babies as
sleepy as the company claimed are asking a judge to formally
approve a $5 million settlement.

The settlement would include nearly $1.5 million for attorneys,
while the individual plaintiffs would collect service awards of
$5,000 each. Members of the class could receive up to $15 each, if
they submit eligible claims.

Stephanie Leiner, of downstate Chillicothe, filed a class action
lawsuit July 2, 2015, in federal court in Chicago against New
Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies alleging
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practice Act and unjust enrichment, among other counts, saying the
company misled her and others into buying products the company
claimed were clinically proven to help babies sleep better.

According to the briefing schedule in the Appellate Case, the
Appellant's brief is due on or before April 4, 2017, for Ashley
Hammack.

Plaintiff-Appellee STEPHANIE LEINER, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com

Appellant ASHLEY HAMMACK is represented by:

          Brian N. Custy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN CUSTY
          101 W. 84th Drive
          Merrillville, IN 46410
          Telephone: (219) 660-0450
          Facsimile: (219) 644-4020
          E-mail: bcusty@officeofgc.com

Defendant-Appellee JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., is
represented by:

          Mark A. Neubauer, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, LLP
          2000 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 843-6300
          Facsimile: (310) 843-6301
          E-mail: mneubauer@cfjblaw.com


JON DAVLER: Faces "Bocardo" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA BOCARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and the California general public; MARIA OLEA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and
the California general public, Plaintiffs, vs. DAVID J. SHEEN; JON
DAVLER, INC.; L.A. SPLASH; L.A. SPLASH COSMETICS, INC.; SPLASH;
LASPLASH COSMETICS; IONICONSMESTIC; DOE 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC 652 373 (Cal. Super., County of Los
Angeles, March 2, 2017), alleges that in violation of the
California Labor Code, Plaintiffs and current and former employees
of DEFENDANTS were paid below the minimum wage and were not
compensated for off the clock work; worked overtime for DEFENDANTS
but were only paid at their regular hourly rate (i.e., straight
time) for the overtime hours they worked; DEFENDANTS failed to pay
PLAINTIFFS and other current and former employees for all hours
worked and/or off-the-clock work; Defendants did not have a meal
and rest period policy and otherwise failed to provide PLAINTIFFS
and other current and former employees meal and rest periods
required by law; failed to provide accurate wage statements and
failed to pay all wages due after separation.

Jon Davler Inc. is a cosmetic retailer.  Plaintiff is an hourly
employee by Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Stephen Glick, Esq.
     M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK
     1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 387-3400
     Fax: (213) 387-7872


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Orellana" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
FERDINAND ORELLANA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated and on Behalf of the JPMORGAN CHASE 401(K)
SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiff, vs. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO, JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A., J.P. MORGAN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT INC., JPMORGAN
CHASE 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN SELECTION COMMITTEE, EMPLOYEE PLANS
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, JAMES DIMON, LEE R. RAYMOND, STEPHEN B.
BURKE, WILLIAM C. WELDON, CRANDALL C. BOWLES, JAMES S. CROWN,
LABAN P. JACKSON, JR., MICHAEL A. NEAL, LINDA B. BAMMANN, TIMOTHY
P. FLYNN, JAMES A. BELL, DAVID M. COTE, ELLEN V. FUTTER, DOUGLAS
L. BRAUNSTEIN, MARIANNE LAKE, JOHN L. DONNELLY, BERNADETTE J.
BRANOSKY and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01575
(S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2017), alleges that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the detriment of the Plan and its participants
and beneficiaries by violating their duties of loyalty and
prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and by
failing to adequately monitor the Plan's co-fiduciaries.

Specifically, Defendants allegedly violated these duties by
larding the Plan with proprietary fund investment options that
charged excessively high fees that inured to the benefit of
affiliates of JPMorgan and one of JPMorgan's closest business
partners, BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., at the
expense of Plan participants.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., doing business as Chase Bank, is a
national bank that constitutes the consumer and commercial banking
subsidiary of the U.S. multinational banking and financial
services holding company, JPMorgan Chase.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     Evan J. Kaufman, Esq.
     Andrew L. Schwartz, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Phone: 631/367-7100
     Fax: 631/367-1173
     E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com
             aschwartz@rgrdlaw.com

        - and -

     Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
     Carissa J. Dolan, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619/231-1058
     Fax: 619/231-7423
     E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
             cdolan@rgrdlaw.com

        - and -

     Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
     JOHNSON & WEAVER LLP
     600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619/230-0063
     Fax: 619/255-1856
     E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com

        - and -

     W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
     JOHNSON & WEAVER LLP
     99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212/802-1486
     Fax: 212/602-1592
     E-mail: scotth@johnsonsandweaver.com


KAUFMAN ENGLETT: Cadwell Appeals M.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Loyd P. Cadwell filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Loyd Cadwell v. Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, PLLC,
Case No. 6:16-cv-00662-PGB-KRS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate
Judge Paul G. Byron dismissed the class action, which accused
Kaufman Englett of violating federal law by causing a cash-
strapped client to incur more debt while he explored filing for
bankruptcy, saying the case can't survive without an alleged
improper motive for the firm's billing.

Judge Byron, who oversees Loyd P. Cadwell's suit in Florida
federal court, said Mr. Cadwell's claims that KEL violated the
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act by billing
him $1,700 in retainer fees while he explored filing for
bankruptcy could not survive the firm's motion to dismiss.

The appellate case is captioned as Loyd Cadwell v. Kaufman,
Englett & Lynd, PLLC, Case No. 17-10810, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before April 3, 2017;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief; and

   -- Appellee's CIP due on or before March 22, 2017, as to
      Appellee Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, PLLC.

Plaintiff-Appellant LOYD P. CADWELL, Individually and on behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Bryan Keith Mickler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICKLER & MICKLER, LLP
          5452 Arlington Expy.
          Jacksonville, FL 32211
          Telephone: (904) 725-0822
          Facsimile: (904) 725-0855
          E-mail: bkmickler@planlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee KAUFMAN, ENGLETT & LYND, PLLC, is represented
by:

          Adam C. Herman, Esq.
          MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, P.A.
          315 E Robinson St., Suite 550
          Orlando, FL 32801-1631
          Telephone: (407) 420-4380
          E-mail: acherman@mdwcg.com


KNIGHT ENTERPRISES: Seeks Review of Decision in "Weckesser" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Knight Enterprises S.E., LLC, filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Patrick Weckesser v. Knight
Enterprises S.E., LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-02053-RMG, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina at Charleston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that the
Defendant has violated the minimum wage provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and has deprived the Plaintiff and the FLSA
Collective Members of their rights to such compensation.

Knight Enterprises provides integrated communications
infrastructure solutions in North America.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Weckesser v. Knight
Enterprises S.E., LLC, Case No. 17-1247, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on April 5, 2017; and

   -- Response Brief is due on May 5, 2017.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee PATRICK WECKESSER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ashley Long Falls, Esq.
          Joseph Scott Falls, Esq.
          FALLS LEGAL, LLC
          245 Seven Farms Drive
          Charleston, SC 29492
          Telephone: (843) 737 6040
          Facsimile: (843) 737 6140
          E-mail: ashley@falls-legal.com
                  scott@falls-legal.com

Defendant-Appellant KNIGHT ENTERPRISES S.E., LLC, is represented
by:

          Matthew Adams Abee, Esq.
          Deborah Whittle Durban, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
          P. O. Box 11070
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 255-9335
          E-mail: matt.abee@nelsonmullins.com
                  debbie.durban@nelsonmullins.com


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Gainesville Suit Parties Still Await Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the Gainesville class action lawsuit still await a
court ruling, according to Koppers Holdings Inc.'s February 22,
2017, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The
property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located
was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East in 2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other
parties as defendants. In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs
allege that chemicals and contaminants from the Gainesville plant
have contaminated real properties, have caused property damage
(diminution in value) and have placed residents and owners of the
putative class properties at an elevated risk of exposure to and
injury from the chemicals at issue. The plaintiffs presently seek
a class comprised of all current property owners of single family
residential properties with a polygon-shaped area extending
approximately two miles from the former plant area (which area
encompasses approximately 7,000 owners).

This case was removed to the United States District court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010. Koppers Holdings
Inc. was dismissed from the case by the district court for lack of
personal jurisdiction. Class factual discovery closed in May 2015
and expert witness discovery was completed in August 2015.
Discovery on the merits is stayed until further order of the
court. Motions were subsequently filed by each side to strike or
limit the testimony of the other side's experts. Plaintiffs filed
a motion for class certification on September 30, 2015. And the
response of Koppers Inc. was filed on October 30, 2015.

A hearing on plaintiffs' motions for class certification and the
parties' motions relating to experts was held in January 2016 and
the parties await a ruling from the court.

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

The Company says it has not provided a reserve for this matter
because, at this time, it cannot reasonably determine the
probability of a loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be
reasonably estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot
be reasonably determined. Although the Company is vigorously
defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

Koppers Holdings Inc. is an integrated global provider of treated
wood products, wood treatment chemicals, and carbon compounds.


LA CUCINA: Faces "Paula" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Work
-------------------------------------------------------
JUAN C. PAULA and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), Plaintiff, vs. LA CUCINA MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a
PERRICONE'S MARKETPLACE & CAFE, STEVEN PERRICONE, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-20796-DPG (S.D. Fla., March 1, 2017), alleges that
Defendants have employed several other similarly situated
employees like Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime and/or
minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

La Cucina Management, Inc. (trade name Peiricone's Marketplace) is
in the Italian Restaurant business.  Plaintiff worked for
Defendants as a sous chef.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAS OLAS: Calderon, et al. Allege Violation of Fla. Wage Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANYEE CALDERON, SARAI ARIAS, RELNA HERNANDEZ, RUTH MARIE-LA
CASTRO, And others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAS OLAS
CAFE, LLC, and CARLOS FLORES, individually, Defendants, Filing No.
53190885 (Fla. Circ., 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, March 2, 2017), alleges that during their employment,
Plaintiffs, at various times, were purportedly paid hourly rates,
in cash, below the statutory Florida Minimum Wage rates.

Plaintiffs were employed with Defendants as non-exempt employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason S. Remer, Esq.
     Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 416-5000
     Fax: (305)416-5005


LAURA J LOWENSTEIN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dawson" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kadeidra Dawson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Laura J. Lowenstein & Associates, LLC and
Capital Resource Management, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01118
(E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Laura J. Lowenstein & Associates, LLC operates a law firm located
at 2005 Merrick Rd #116, Merrick, NY 11566

Capital Resource Management, Inc. specializes in pre and post
business succession planning, retirement planning, and investment
strategy development.

Kadeidra Dawson is a pro se plaintiff.

The Defendant is represented by:

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


LEGGETT & PLATT: Indirect Purchaser Suits Fully Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the U.S.
Indirect Purchaser Class Action Cases have been fully resolved.

The Company said: "We reached a tentative settlement in the U.S.
Indirect Class Action cases on May 18, 2015, by agreeing to pay an
amount not materially different from the amount previously accrued
for this claim. We continue to deny all allegations in the cases,
but settled the indirect purchaser class cases to avoid the risk,
uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The Court
preliminarily approved the class settlement on July 31, 2015. The
full settlement amount was paid in escrow in the third quarter of
2015. The final settlement approval hearing was held on December
15, 2015 and the Court granted final approval of the settlement."

"Several objectors filed notices of appeal of the order approving
the class settlement to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On
April 14, 2016, the Court ordered the objectors to post an appeal
bond by May 13, 2016. Certain of the objectors filed a motion to
reconsider or stay the bond order, which the Court denied on May
12, 2016. Subsequently, three of the five objectors voluntarily
dismissed their appeals. On June 20, 2016, the Sixth Circuit
dismissed the remaining two appeals, one for failure to post an
appeal bond, and the other because it was untimely filed. One of
the two objectors filed a petition for rehearing en banc
(requesting that all judges rather than the normal 3 rule on the
appeal) on June 29, 2016. That petition was denied on September
27, 2016. On December 22, 2016, the objector filed a petition for
a writ of certiori to the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition was
denied on January 23, 2017. As such, these cases have been fully
resolved."

Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, is a diversified manufacturer, and
member of the S&P 500 index, that conceives, designs, and produces
a wide range of engineered components and products found in many
homes, offices, automobiles, and commercial airplanes.  The
Company makes components that are often hidden within, but
integral to, its customers' products.


LUBRIZOL: Ohio Appeals Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Lake County
Court of Common Pleas dismissing the Second Amended Consolidated
Derivative and Class Action Complaint for lack of standing in the
case captioned, IN RE: LUBRIZOL SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION, Case No.
2016-L-026 (Ohio App.).

On March 16, 2011, Henry Mandel, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, and Derivatively on Behalf of The
Lubrizol Corporation, filed a Class and Derivative Action in the
Lake County Court of Common Pleas against members of Lubrizol's
Board of Directors, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Ohio Merger Sub,
Inc., and The Lubrizol Corporation as a nominal defendant. The
action sought "to enjoin defendants from further breaching their
fiduciary duties in pursuit of a sale of the Company at an unfair
price through an unfair and self-serving process to Berkshire."

On May 10, 2011, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry
consolidating Mandel v. Hambrick, Case No. 11CV000684, with
Spletter v. Lubrizol, Case No. 11CV000825, Sair v. Hambrick, Case
No. 11CV000807, Jaroslawicz v. Hambrick, Case No. 11CV000886, and
State-Boston Retirement System v. Hambrick, Case No. 11CV001006.

On October 31, 2011, Plaintiffs Mandel and Sair filed a Second
Amended Consolidated Derivative and Class Action Complaint,
captioned In re Lubrizol Shareholder Litigation. The Consolidated
Complaint raised two causes of action, one a class or direct claim
and the other a derivative claim. Both causes of action were for
breach of fiduciary duties. The Complaint sought a declaration
that the Merger Agreement was unlawful and unenforceable and the
rescission thereof.

On February 27, 2012, the Lubrizol defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Derivative and Class
Action Complaint. On February 18, 2016, the trial court issued a
Judgment Entry, granting the Lubrizol defendants' Motion to
Dismiss. The court held that "Plaintiffs do not have standing to
bring a direct class action claim for breach of fiduciary duty and
Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring a derivative claim
because they are not shareholders of the corporation.

On appeal, Plaintiff raises that the trial court (1) erred in
granting Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
Second Cause of Action; (2) erred by granting Defendants-
Appellees' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action
without addressing and sustaining the viability of the substantive
claim for breach of fiduciary duty; (3) erred by granting
Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Cause
of Action without addressing and sustaining the viability of the
substantive claim for breach of fiduciary duty; (4) erred in
granting Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
Second Cause of Action by holding that Plaintiff did not
sufficiently plead derivative demand futility.

In an Opinion dated February 21, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/G3mtcv from Leagle.com, the Ohio Court of Appeals
held that removal is untimely because Prestige knew that the
Plaintiffs sought to certify a class that covered the period 2006
to the present and, thus, that the amount in controversy exceeded
$5 million, years before it filed its Notice of Removal.  The
Court will not exercise its discretion to award attorneys' fees
and costs in the case finding that Prestige had a reasonable basis
for seeking removal.

Emilie J. Sair is represented by Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq. --
gritts@jonesday.com -- and -- Marjorie P. Duffy, Esq. --
mduffy@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY

The Lubrizol Corporation is represented by

      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      LANDSKRONERGRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
      1360 W 9th St #200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (888)570-3607

-- Phillip A. Ciano, Esq. Andrew S. Goldwasser, Esq. -- asg@c-g-
law.com -- and -- Robert A. West, Jr., Esq. -- RWest@c-g-law.com -
-- CIANO & GOLDWASSER, LLP -- Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. --
MONTEVERDE& ASSOCIATES PC -- David A. Knotts, Esq. --
dknotts@rgrdlaw.com -- and -- David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. --
DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWN, LLP


M&T BANK: Trial in Wilmington Trust Securities Suit on June 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated lawsuit styled In Re Wilmington Trust
Securities Litigation (D. Del. Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR), is
scheduled for June 18, 2018, according to M&T Bank Corporation's
February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Beginning on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to
be class representatives, commenced a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company's subsidiary, Wilmington Trust
Corporation, alleging that Wilmington Trust Corporation's
financial reporting and securities filings were in violation of
securities laws. The cases were consolidated and Wilmington Trust
Corporation moved to dismiss. The Court issued an order denying
Wilmington Trust Corporation's motion to dismiss on March 20,
2014. Fact discovery commenced.

On April 13, 2016, the Court issued an order staying fact
discovery in the case pending completion of the trial in U.S. v.
Wilmington Trust Corp., et al. On September 19, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the stay of discovery in this
matter to allow for additional, limited discovery.

On December 19, 2016, the Court issued an order lifting the
existing stay in its entirety, subject to appropriate protective
orders to be determined by the Court.

On January 24, 2017, the Court issued an order scheduling trial
for June 18, 2018 and entering certain protective orders.

Headquartered in Buffalo, New York, M&T Bank Corporation is a New
York business corporation, which is registered as a financial
holding company and as a bank holding company.  M&T was
incorporated in November 1969.  As of December 31, 2016 the
Company had consolidated total assets of $123.4 billion, deposits
of $95.5 billion and shareholders' equity of $16.5 billion.


MALEN & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bakon" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bakon, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Malen & Associates, P.C., Case No. 1:17-cv-
01116 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Malen & Associates, P.C. operates a law firm located at 123 Frost
St # 203, Westbury, NY 11590.

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


MARK OBENSTINE: Seeks Review of Decision in "Estakhrian" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Mark Richard Obenstine filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled James Estakhrian, et al. v. Mark
Obenstine, Case No. 2:11-cv-03480-FMO-CW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as James Estakhrian, et al. v.
Mark Obenstine, Case No. 17-80026, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon.
Fernando M. Olguin certified a class with respect to the
Plaintiffs' claims for professional malpractice and breach of
fiduciary duty consisting of "all individuals who were class
members in, i.e. did not opt out of, Daniel Watt, et al. v. Nevada
Property 1, LLC, et al., Nevada District Court, Case No. A582541,
excluding Sanjay Varma."

Plaintiffs-Respondents JAMES ESTAKHRIAN, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, and ABDI NAZIRI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
          Nance F. Becker, Esq.
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
          E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com
                  Nance@chavezgertler.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Skalet, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 855-5100
          E-mail: sskalet@findjustice.com

Defendant-Petitioner MARK RICHARD OBENSTINE represents himself:

          Mark Richard Obenstine, Esq.
          MARK OBENSTINE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          5404 Whitsett Avenue
          Valley Village, CA 91607
          Telephone: (818) 321-9434


MDL 2074: Anthem Wins Final Judgment
------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has
entered final judgment in Anthem, Inc.'s favor in the
multidistrict litigation styled In re WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a
Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation, according to
the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company is a defendant in 11 putative class actions relating
to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that were consolidated
into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re WellPoint, Inc.
(n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation that is
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The lawsuits were filed in 2009. The
plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf of a
putative class of members who received OON services for which the
defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical
Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians, OON
non-physician providers, the American Podiatric Medical
Association, California Chiropractic Association and the
California Psychological Association on behalf of putative classes
of OON physicians and all OON non-physician health care providers.
The plaintiffs filed several amended complaints alleging that the
defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA,
federal regulations, and state law by using an OON reimbursement
database called Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement
methodologies. The most recent pleading filed by the plaintiffs is
a Fourth Amended Complaint to which the Company filed a motion to
dismiss most, but not all, of the claims.

In July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the Company's motion. The court held that the
federal and state anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims
should be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The court
further found that the ERISA claims, to the extent they involved
non-Ingenix methodologies, along with those that involved the
Company's alleged non-disclosures should be dismissed with
prejudice. The court also dismissed most of the plaintiffs' state
law claims with prejudice. The only claims that remain after the
court's decision are an ERISA benefits claim relating to claims
priced based on Ingenix, a breach of contract claim on behalf of
one subscriber plaintiff, a breach of implied covenant claim on
behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff's
claim under the California Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs
filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss order,
which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court
ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that one Georgia
provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted administrative
remedies regarding non-Ingenix methodologies based on the facts
alleged regarding that plaintiff. Fact discovery is complete.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November
2013 seeking six different classes. Following oral argument, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
late 2014. The California subscriber plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to file a renewed motion for class certification with more
narrowly defined proposed classes, which the court denied. All but
two of the individually named subscribers and all of the providers
and medical associations dismissed their claims with prejudice.
The Company filed a motion for summary judgment in March 2016, and
a motion for summary judgment was also filed by one of the
remaining individual plaintiffs.

In July 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion and granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. One
plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied,
and then filed an appeal of the court's denial of the motion for
reconsideration, which is currently pending. In October 2016, the
court entered final judgment in the case in the Company's favor.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend these suits;
however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

Anthem, Inc., is one of the largest health benefits companies in
the United States in terms of medical membership, serving 39.9
million medical members through the Company's affiliated health
plans as of December 31, 2016.  The Company is an independent
licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA,
an association of independent health benefit plans. The Company
serves its members as the Blue Cross licensee for California and
as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield, or BCBS, licensee for Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri
(excluding 30 counties in the Kansas City area), Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York (as BCBS in 10 New York City metropolitan and
surrounding counties, and as Blue Cross or BCBS in selected
upstate counties), Ohio, Virginia (excluding the Northern Virginia
suburbs of Washington, D.C.) and Wisconsin.


MDL 2196: Leggett & Platt Still Faces Polyurethane Foam Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, continues to defend itself against
the polyurethane foam antitrust multidistrict litigation,
according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "We were named as a defendant in an indirect
purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21,
2011 and were subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser class
action case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane
Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves and/or a class of indirect purchasers,
brought damages claims under various states' antitrust and
consumer protection statutes, and were seeking three times an
amount of damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged
overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at
least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also sought attorney
fees, prejudgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief
against future violations."

"We denied all allegations. The Ohio Court ordered all parties to
attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing."

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

Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, is a diversified manufacturer, and
member of the S&P 500 index, that conceives, designs, and produces
a wide range of engineered components and products found in many
homes, offices, automobiles, and commercial airplanes.  The
Company makes components that are often hidden within, but
integral to, its customers' products.


MDL 2280: NJ Court Grants MSSB's Summary Judgment Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted defendant's motion for summary
judgment in the case titled IN RE MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC
WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION, MDL 2280, Civ. No. 2:11-3121 (D.N.J.).

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
referred to as MSSB, is a financial services firm focused on
providing financial advisory services and selling various
investment products to a large and diversified clientele.

Plaintiffs Jimmy Kuhn, Nick Pontilena, Howard Rosenblatt and
Denise Often worked for MSSB for varying durations as Financial
Advisors. On May 31, 2011, Pontilena filed a class and collective
action complaint, alleging that MSSB violated the FLSA by failing
to pay overtime wages, and that it violated New Jersey law by
failing to pay overtime wages, making impermissible deductions
from employees' wages and failing to maintain records.

The court subsequently consolidated Pontilena's claims with
similar claims emanating from Connecticut, New York and Rhode
Island, creating a multidistrict class and collective action
against MSSB, alleging ten counts in violation of the FLSA and
various state labor laws. During the ensuing litigation, the court
dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims except for the FLSA overtime
claim and the Connecticut, New Jersey and New York overtime
claims. On April 11, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class action and conditional collective certification.
Consequently, plaintiffs' individual overtime claims are all that
remain.

MSSB moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining overtime
claims, arguing that the FLSA claim fails because plaintiffs
satisfied the administrative exemption, that plaintiffs Often,
Pontilena and Kuhn also satisfied the highly compensated
exemption, that plaintiffs Pontilena and Kuhn's FLSA claims are
time barred, and the administrative exemptions under the three
state laws mirror the FLSA and plaintiffs are, exempt under state
law for the same reasons as they are under the FLSA.

Plaintiffs oppose the application of the exemption countering that
genuine issues of material fact exist. They presented before the
court the issues whether plaintiffs were paid the required minimum
salary of $455 per week, whether plaintiffs' primary duty at MSSB
was the performance of office or non-manual work directly related
to MSSB's management or general business operations, and whether
plaintiffs exercised discretion and independent judgment to
significant matters.  Plaintiffs also contest MSSB's other claims
concerning the highly compensated exemption, the statute of
limitations, and the state labor laws at issue and they also filed
a separate motion to strike portions of MSSB's objections to
plaintiffs' counterstatement of facts.

Judge Martini held that MSSB has met its burden in showing that
there is no factual dispute that plaintiffs satisfied the
exemption, and MSSB was not required to pay them overtime wages.
He added that plaintiffs were exempt employees under New York, New
Jersey and Connecticut law for the same reasons as they were under
the FLSA. MSSB's motion for summary judgment is granted and all
remaining counts are dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Martini's opinion dated February 28, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/ImAa76 from Leagle.com.

NICK PONTILENA, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY G. SMITH --
smith@whafh.com -- MICHAEL MILTON LISKOW -- liskow@gmail.com -- at
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP; ROBERT ABRAMS --
babrams@abramslaw.com -- at Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman,
Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP; STEPHEN PATRICK DENITTIS --
sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- at DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC

DENISE OTTEN, Plaintiff in case 11-6062, Plaintiff, JEFFREY G.
SMITH --smith@whafh.com -- MICHAEL MILTON LISKOW --
liskow@gmail.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP;
ERIK H. LANGELAND; STEPHEN PATRICK DENITTIS --
sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- at DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC

JIMMY KUHN, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew M. Guiney --
guiney@whafh.com -- JEFFREY G. SMITH --smith@whafh.com -- MICHAEL
MILTON LISKOW -- liskow@gmail.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP; ROBERT ABRAMS -- babrams@abramslaw.com -- at
Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf,
LLP; STEPHEN PATRICK DENITTIS -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- at
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC

GREGG VANASSE, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew H. Berg --
berg@sbllp.net -- at Sammartino & Berg; JEFFREY G. SMITH --
smith@whafh.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP;
ROBERT ABRAMS -- babrams@abramslaw.com -- at Abrams, Fensterman,
Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP

HOWARD ROSENBLATT, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY G. SMITH --
smith@whafh.com -- MICHAEL MILTON LISKOW -- liskow@gmail.com -- at
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP; ROBERT ABRAMS --
babrams@abramslaw.com --at Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman,
Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP; STEPHEN PATRICK DENITTIS --
sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- at DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC; ANDREW W.
SKOLNICK -- at Harlow, Adams & Friedman, P.C.

MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, Defendant, represented by DANIEL
F. MURPHY, JR. -- dmurphy@putneylaw.com -- MARK ANTHONY HERNANDEZ
-- mhernandez@putneylaw.com -- at PUTNEY, TWOMBLY, HALL & HIRSON;
JESSICA R. PERRY -- jperry@orrick.com -- TRISH M. HIGGINS --
thiggins@orrick.com -- at Orrick

MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC., Defendant, represented by TRISH M.
HIGGINS -- thiggins@orrick.com -- at Orrick


MDL 2406: Subscriber and Provider Plaintiffs Add New Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that the subscriber plaintiffs and
provider plaintiffs filed new consolidated amended complaints
adding new named plaintiffs and new factual allegations in the
multidistrict litigation titled In re Blue Cross Blue Shield
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2406.

The Company is a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were
initially filed in 2012 against the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees
across the country. The cases were consolidated into a single
multi-district lawsuit called In re Blue Cross Blue Shield
Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Generally, the suits
allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have engaged in a
conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic markets through
license agreements, best efforts rules (which limit the percentage
of non-Blue revenue of each plan), restrictions on acquisitions
and other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act
and related state laws.

The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of
plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and
provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints in
July 2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also
brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan
subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Defendants filed motions to
dismiss in September 2013.

In June 2014, the court denied the majority of the motions, ruling
that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at this stage of the
litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims. Following the
subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of the subscriber
and provider plaintiffs, the Company filed its answer and asserted
the Company's affirmative defenses in December 2014. No date has
been set for either the pretrial conference or trials in these
actions.

Since January 2016, subscribers have filed additional actions
asserting damage claims in Indiana, Kansas, Kansas City,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia, all of which have been consolidated
into the multi-district lawsuit.

In November 2016, subscriber plaintiffs and provider plaintiffs
filed new consolidated amended complaints adding new named
plaintiffs and new factual allegations.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend these suits;
however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.

Anthem, Inc., is one of the largest health benefits companies in
the United States in terms of medical membership, serving 39.9
million medical members through the Company's affiliated health
plans as of December 31, 2016.  The Company is an independent
licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBSA,
an association of independent health benefit plans. The Company
serves its members as the Blue Cross licensee for California and
as the Blue Cross and Blue Shield, or BCBS, licensee for Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri
(excluding 30 counties in the Kansas City area), Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York (as BCBS in 10 New York City metropolitan and
surrounding counties, and as Blue Cross or BCBS in selected
upstate counties), Ohio, Virginia (excluding the Northern Virginia
suburbs of Washington, D.C.) and Wisconsin.


MTAG SERVICES: Connecticut Court Narrows Claims in "Weldon"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Janet C. Hall of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions
to dismiss the case captioned ROGER WELDON, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MTAG SERVICES,
LLC et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-783(JCH) (D.
Conn.).

The City of Bridgeport imposed four municipal tax liens on Roger
Weldon's home after the latter did not pay his property taxes for
several years. The City assigned the liens to MTAG Caz Creek CT,
LLC, which immediately assigned the liens it received to MTAG
Services, LLC or MTAG as its custodian or directly to MTAG as
custodian for MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC. MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC
changed its name to Caz Creek CT, LLC

In August 2015, MTAG, in its custodial capacity, assigned the four
liens to Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC. On October 19, 2015,
MTAG, as custodian for MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC, filed a tax lien
foreclosure lawsuit against Weldon in state court to collect on
the liens, but the complaint did not indicate that the liens had
been assigned to Cazenovia. Rather, materials attached to the
filing expressly stated that plaintiff as named in the complaint
is the creditor to whom the debt is owed, and a notice of lis
pendens dated the same day as the state complaint indicated that
MTAG Services, LLC, as custodian for MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC is now
the owner and holder of said liens. The state complaint demanded
foreclosure of the lien, attorney's fees, interest, and costs. Caz
Creek appears under its previous name, MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC.

Weldon initially denied some of the allegations in the state
complaint, but later asked that Caz Creek and MTAG inform him of
the amount necessary to pay off the debts.  On December 31, 2015,
Weldon provided a certified check for $25,463.23, the amount that
MTAG and Caz Creek had demanded by email. MTAG and Caz Creek
withdrew the lawsuit the same day and later refunded $375, but the
remaining $25,088.23 Weldon paid included charges for $1,100.00 of
attorney's fees and $1,319.20 of costs.

On December 29, 2015, February 4, 2016, and March 23, 2016, Weldon
demanded that defendants discharge the tax liens on his home for
tax years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, which were at that point
paid in full. Cazenovia filed a discharge of the 2011 and 2013 tax
liens on February 4, 2016. For the 2010 and 2012 liens, Cazenovia
filed a release dated June 16, 2016, which was notated as received
by the City of Bridgeport on July 13, 2016. Neither MTAG nor
Cazenovia are licensed Connecticut Consumer Collection Agencies.
Caz Creek is licensed as a consumer collection agency, as of
November 18, 2015, under its current name, Caz Creek CT, LLC.

Weldon claims defendants engaged in wide-ranging, unlawful conduct
related to their prosecution of municipal tax lien foreclosure
actions. In his first amended complaint, Weldon alleged conversion
(count I), violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act (count II), abuse of process (count III), violations of the
Connecticut Creditor Collection Practices Act (count IV),
violations of sections 12-195g, 42a-9-513, and 42a-9-625 of the
Connecticut General Statutes (count V), violations of section 49-8
of the Connecticut General Statutes (count VI), and unjust
enrichment(count VII).

Caz Creek and Cazenovia filed a motion to dismiss the claims
against them, under Rules 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6)., as did MTAG.

Judge Hall granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions
to dismiss. Counts I, II A-D, and II H are dismissed on both
litigation privilege and Noerr-Pennington grounds, while counts II
E-F are dismissed on Noerr-Pennington grounds. Count II F, insofar
as it brings claims against Cazenovia, is dismissed for lack of
standing. Count II G is dismissed because defendants are not
consumer collection agencies, and count III is dismissed because
he failed to allege that defendants instituted the state
foreclosure suit for any collateral purpose. Counts IV A-C are
dismissed because the municipal tax liens at issue in the case do
not qualify as debts within the meaning of the CCPA, and count V,
similarly, is dismissed because section 12-195g of the Connecticut
General Statutes does not apply to municipal tax liens on real
property. Lastly, count VII is dismissed for failure to plausibly
state an unjust enrichment claim, where it is undisputed that
Weldon's liens were discharged in exchange for the payment he made
to defendants.

Defendants' motions to dismiss count VI on Article III standing
grounds are denied. Count VI is the only claim that survives.

A copy of Judge Hall's order dated February 28, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/NYWioZ from Leagle.com.

Roger Weldon, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Blinn -- at
Consumer Law Group; Peter A. Holland -- at The Holland Law Firm,
P.C.; Joseph S. Tusa -- at Tusa P.C.

MTAG Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Soukup --
asoukup@cov.com -- Christian J. Pistilli -- cpistilli@cov.com --
at Covington & Burling, LLP; Richard S. Order -- rorder@uks.com --
Adam B. Marks -- amarks@uks.com -- at Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC

CAZ Creek CT, LLC and Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Alyx S. Pattison -- alyx.pattison@akerman.com --
Dara Chevlin Tarkowski -- dara.tarkowski@akerman.com -- Julian
Dayal -- julian.dayal@akerman.com -- at Akerman, LLP; Michael J.
Jones -- mjones@ibolaw.com -- Michael Andrew Zamat -- at Ivey,
Barnum & O'Mara LLC

Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alyx S.
Pattison, Akerman, LLP, pro hac vice, Dara Chevlin Tarkowski,
Akerman, LLP, pro hac vice, Julian Dayal, Akerman, LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael J. Jones, Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara LLC, Jessica Marie
Signor, Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara LLC & Michael Andrew Zamat, Ivey,
Barnum & O'Mara LLC


MXI CORP: Class Settlement in "Martinez" Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada granted final approval of class action settlement in the
case captioned ENRIQUE MARTINEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MXI CORP.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00243-MMD-VPC (D. Nev.).

The plaintiffs and defendants have entered into a settlement
agreement. The class representatives have filed a joint motion for
final approval of the class action settlement.

The court orders that the following settlement class is finally
certified for settlement purposes only:

     All MXI Associates who (1) received less money from MXI than
they paid MXI in fees or product purchases over the course of
their associations with MXI, up to the November 3, 2016, (2) made
any payment to MXI to purchase product or pay fees between May 1,
2011 and November 3, 2016, and (3) were U.S. residents at any time
between May 1, 2011 and the present; provided, however, that the
defendants, their affiliates, their management, their employees
and their spouses are excluded from the settlement class, provided
further that the foregoing exclusions shall not cover MXI
Associates other than any defendants.

The court finds that the settlement is the product of serious,
informed, noncollusive negotiations conducted at arms' length by
the parties and with the initial assistance of a mediator. The
court finds that the terms of the settlement agreement are fair,
adequate, and reasonable and comply with Rule 23.

The injunctive relief provided for in the settlement agreement is
appropriate, and enjoins defendant MXI as follows:

   a. Within 150 days of the Effective Date, MXI will provide to
class counsel: (a) copies of any policies, procedures, rules,
regulations, and agreements that then govern or apply to its
contractual relationships with its members and its preferred
customers; (b) evidence that MXI is no longer encouraging or
incentivizing its members to purchase goods or services to
maintain eligibility for bonuses, rewards, or commissions; (c)
evidence that MXI is no longer inducing others to encourage or
incentivize members to purchase goods or services to maintain an
eligibility for bonuses, rewards, or commissions; (d) evidence
that MXI is encouraging its members to purchase goods or services
for resale or personal use; and (e) evidence that MXI requires a
member to have at least 51% of his or her group qualifying sales
volume of goods or services from preferred customers in order to
earn compensation.

   b. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, MXI may not pay any
compensation to its members unless at least 10% of the member's
group qualifying sales volume of goods or services are from
preferred customer sales.

   c. Within 60 days of the Effective Date, MXI may not pay any
compensation to its members unless at least 20% of the member's
group qualifying sales volume of goods or services are from
preferred customer sales.

   d. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, MXI may not pay any
compensation to its members unless at least 30% of the member's
group qualifying sales volume of goods or services are from
preferred customer sales.

   e. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, MXI may not pay any
compensation to its members unless at least 40% of the member's
group qualifying sales volume of goods or services are from
preferred customer sales.

   f. Within 150 days of the Effective Date, MXI may not pay any
compensation to its members unless at least 51% of the member's
group qualifying sales volume of goods or services are from
preferred customer sales.

The court directs the parties and the settlement administrator to
consummate the settlement agreement according to its terms, and
dismisses the action with prejudice in accordance with the terms
of the settlement agreement however, the court shall retain
continuing jurisdiction to interpret, implement, and enforce the
settlement and all orders and judgment entered in connection
therewith.

A copy of Judge Du's order dated February 28, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/D2NcSV from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Randall Adam Swick --
aswick@rctlegal.com -- J. Benjamin King -- bking@rctlegal.com --
at Reid Collins & Tsai; John Patrick Desmond --
JDesmond@dickinson-wright.com -- Justin James Bustos --
JBustos@dickinson-wright.com -- at Dickinson Wright PLLC

MXI Corp, Martin J Brooks, Jeanette L Brooks, Andrew Brooks,
Defendants, represented by Brian A. Howie --
brian.howie@quarles.com -- Joshua D. Maggard --
joshua.maggard@quarles.com -- Edward A. Salanga --
edward.salanga@quarles.com -- Kevin D. Quigley --
kevin.quigley@quarles.com -- at Quarles & Brady LLP; Nathan M.
Jenkins -- at Jenkins Law Firm

Dr. Gordon Pedersen, Connie Hollstein, Sherman Smith, Ruth Smith,
William "Butch" Swaby, Felix Gudino, Glen Overton, Adam Paul
Green, Jeremy Reynolds, Derrick Winkel, Paul Engemann,
Defendants, represented by Douglas R. Rands -- at Rands, South &
Gardner

Paula Pritchard, Kathleen Robbins, Ian Murray, Judy Murray, Sandy
Chambers,Kerry Dean, Defendants, represented by Lesley B. Miller -
- lmiller@kcnvlaw.com -- at Kaempfer Crowell


NETFLIX INC: "Ziolkowski" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ZIOLKOWSKI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. NETFLIX, INC., REED HASTINGS,
and DAVID WELLS, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01070-HSG (N.D.
Cal., March 1, 2017), is a securities class action arising from
material misstatements and omissions by Defendants regarding
Netflix's media streaming business, particularly, Netflix's price
increase and its brutal impact on subscriber growth, in violation
of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.

Netflix, Inc. is predominantly a streaming content provider that
allows customers who pay a monthly subscription fee to instantly
watch popular television shows and movies through the Internet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP
     912 Cole Street #251
     San Francisco, CA 94117
     Phone: 504-455-1400
     Fax: 504-455-1498
     E-mail: ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com

        - and -

     Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
     David J. Harris, Jr., Esq.
     Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
     550 West C Street, Suite 1760
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 238-1333
     Fax: (619) 238-5425
     E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
             djh@classactionlaw.com
             trk@classactionlaw.com


NEW FOOD: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "De Los Santos" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Andres De Los Santos, Domingo Franco, Jose Ramon Lopez,
Angel Rodriguez and Ramon Santos filed an appeal from the District
Court's minute order dated January 24, 2017, in the lawsuit styled
De Los Santos v. New Food Corp., Case No. 14-cv-4541, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central
Islip).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are chain of supermarkets owned and operated by
Jason Ferreira and Jose Ferreira.

The appellate case is captioned as De Los Santos v. New Food
Corp., Case No. 17-539, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Andres De Los Santos, Domingo Franco, Angel
Rodriguez, Ramon Santos, and Jose Ramon Lopez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Steven John Moser, Esq.
          STEVEN J. MOSER P.C.
          3 School Street, Suite 207B
          Glen Cove, NY 11542
          Telephone: (516) 671-1150
          Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
          E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees New Food Corp., DBA Foodtown; JCA Food Corp.,
DBA Metfood; JJC Food Corp., DBA Foodtown; SWF Food Corp., DBA
Foodtown; Mother Food Corp., DBA Foodtown; Jason Ferreira; and
Jose Ferreira are represented by:

          Gregory S. Lisi, Esq.
          FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO, COHN
          & TERRANA, LLP
          The Omni
          333 Earle Ovington Boulevard
          Uniondale, NY 11553
          Telephone: (516) 248-1700
          Facsimile: (516) 248-1729
          E-mail: glisi@forchellilaw.com


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Chester County Employees' Bid to Reargue Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment Corp. said in its Form 10-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Delaware Court
of Chancery denied the motion for reargument filed by the Chester
County Employees' Retirement Fund.

The Company said: "On May 22, 2015, a purported stockholder of the
Company, Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund, filed a class
action and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
purportedly on behalf of all stockholders and the Company, titled
Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund v. New Residential
Investment Corp., et al., C.A. No. 11058-VCMR. On October 30,
2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended
Complaint"). The lawsuit names the Company, our directors, our
Manager, Fortress and Fortress Operating Entity I LP as
defendants, and alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Company, our directors, our Manager, Fortress and Fortress
Operating Entity I LP in connection with the HLSS Acquisition. The
lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment, among other things, as to
the applicability of Article Twelfth of the Company's Certificate
of Incorporation and as to the validity of the release of claims
of the Company's stockholders related to the termination of the
HLSS Initial Merger Agreement. The Amended Complaint seeks
declaratory relief, equitable relief and damages."

"On December 11, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, which was heard by the court on June 14, 2016.
On October 7, 2016, the court issued an opinion dismissing without
prejudice the breach of fiduciary duty claims and declaratory
judgment claims, except for the claim relating to the
applicability of Article Twelfth. On October 14, 2016, plaintiff
moved to reargue the Court's dismissal opinion, and defendants
filed an opposition to the motion for reargument on October 28,
2016. On December 1, 2016, the court denied the motion for
reargument."

New Residential Investment Corp. is a Delaware corporation that
was formed as a limited liability company in September 2011.  The
Company is a publicly traded real estate investment trust
primarily focused on opportunistically investing in, and actively
managing, investments related to residential real estate.


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities lawsuit involving a subsidiary of New
Residential Investment Corp. remains pending in Florida, according
to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Home
Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., a Cayman Islands exempted company
("HLSS") and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing
Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on
January 29, 2015; (ii) Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions,
Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015;
and (iii) W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing
Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on
February 13, 2015. On April 2, 2015, these lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action, which is referred to as the
"Securities Action." On April 28, 2015, lead plaintiffs, lead
counsel and liaison counsel were appointed in the Securities
Action. On November 9, 2015, lead plaintiffs filed an amended
class action complaint. On January 27, 2016, the Securities Action
was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and given the Index No. 16-CV-60165
(S.D. Fla.).

The Securities Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS
Chairman William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President and Chief
Executive Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial
Officer James E. Lauter. The Securities Action asserts causes of
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on
certain public disclosures made by HLSS relating to its
relationship with Ocwen and HLSS's risk management and internal
controls. More specifically, the consolidated class action
complaint alleges that a series of statements in HLSS's
disclosures were materially false and misleading, including
statements about (i) Ocwen's servicing capabilities; (ii) HLSS's
contingencies and legal proceedings; (iii) its risk management and
internal controls; and (iv) certain related party transactions.
The consolidated class action complaint also appears to allege
that HLSS's financial statements for the years ended 2012 and
2013, and the first quarter ended March 30, 2014, were false and
misleading based on HLSS's August 18, 2014 restatement. Lead
plaintiffs in the Securities Action also allege that HLSS misled
investors by failing to disclose, among other things, information
regarding governmental investigations of Ocwen's business
practices. Lead plaintiffs seek money damages under the Exchange
Act in an amount to be proven at trial and reasonable costs,
expenses, and fees. On February 11, 2015, defendants filed motions
to dismiss the Securities Action in its entirety.

On June 6, 2016, all allegations except those regarding certain
related party transactions were dismissed.

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

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the Securities
Action.

New Residential Investment Corp. is a Delaware corporation that
was formed as a limited liability company in September 2011.  The
Company is a publicly traded real estate investment trust
primarily focused on opportunistically investing in, and actively
managing, investments related to residential real estate.


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Says Walter and Ditech Facing Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Ditech Financial
LLC and Walter Investment Management Corp. are involved in certain
litigation, including putative class actions, over alleged
violations of various laws.

On August 8, 2016, New Residential Mortgage LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company and a licensed mortgage servicer,
entered into a flow and bulk agreement for the purchase and sale
of mortgage servicing rights (the "Walter Purchase Agreement")
with Ditech Financial LLC ("Ditech"), a subsidiary of Walter
Investment Management Corp. Pursuant to the Walter Purchase
Agreement, NRM agreed to (i) purchase the mortgage servicing
rights ("MSRs") and related Servicer Advances with respect to a
pool of existing Fannie Mae residential mortgage loans with a
total UPB of approximately $32.3 billion (the "Walter Existing
MSRs") for a purchase price of approximately $211.4 million and
$27.4 million, respectively, subject to certain adjustments set
forth in the Walter Purchase Agreement, and (ii) provide ongoing
daily pricing to Ditech for the purchase of MSRs from Ditech
relating to new residential mortgage loans originated or purchased
by Ditech on a flow basis and pooled into Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
or, if applicable, Ginnie Mae securities (the "Walter Flow MSRs").

Walter is involved in litigation, including putative class
actions, and other legal proceedings concerning, among other
things, lender-placed insurance, private mortgage insurance,
bankruptcy practices, employment practices, the Consumer Financial
Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
the Truth in Lending Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, and other federal and state laws and statutes.

The Company says the outcome of all of Walter's regulatory matters
and other legal proceedings is uncertain, and it is possible that
adverse results in such proceedings (which could include
restitution, penalties, punitive damages and injunctive relief
affecting Walter's business practices) and the terms of any
settlements of such proceedings could have a material adverse
effect on Walter's reputation, business, prospects, results of
operations, liquidity or financial condition.

New Residential Investment Corp. is a Delaware corporation that
was formed as a limited liability company in September 2011.  The
Company is a publicly traded real estate investment trust
primarily focused on opportunistically investing in, and actively
managing, investments related to residential real estate.


NEW YORK TIMES: Final Hearing Next Month on Labor Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 25, 2016, that a final hearing is
scheduled to take place in April 2017 for the approval of its
settlement resolving a class action lawsuit.

The Company has been involved in class action litigation brought
on behalf of individuals who, from 2006 to 2011, delivered
newspapers at NEMG T&G, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company ("T&G").
T&G was a part of the New England Media Group, which the Company
sold in 2013. The plaintiffs asserted several claims against T&G,
including a challenge to their classification as independent
contractors, and sought unspecified damages.

In December 2016, the Company reached a settlement with respect to
the claims. This settlement remains subject to court approval, and
a final hearing is scheduled to take place in April 2017. As a
result of the settlement, the Company recorded a charge of $3.7
million in the fourth quarter within discontinued operations.

The New York Times Company was incorporated on August 26, 1896,
under the laws of the State of New York. The Company and its
consolidated subsidiaries are a global media organization focused
on creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news and
information.  The Company includes newspapers, print and digital
products and investments.


NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL: Deceives Policyholders, "McClendon" Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIETTA MCCLENDON, Plaintiff, v. NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant (M.D. Tenn., March 1, 2017), is a
class action that claims Defendant deceives its policyholders and
beneficiaries by breaking promises made to them and cheats them
out of money it owes them.

In particular, NCM allegedly cheated its policyholders and
beneficiaries in two ways: first, it charged interest rates on the
policy loans that were higher than the promised interest rates;
and second, when policyholders made payments towards paying back
their policy loans, NCM pocketed the money but did not apply it to
reduce the loan balance.

North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Company is an insurance
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
     Annika K. Martin, Esq.
     LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     150 Fourth Avenue, North, Suite 1650
     Nashville, TN 37219-2423
     Phone: (615) 313-9000
     Fax: (615) 355-9592
     E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
             akmartin@lchb.com

        - and -

     J. Bradley Ponder, Esq.
     Luke Montgomery, Esq.
     MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC
     2421 2nd Avenue North, Suite 1
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 201-0303
     Fax: (205) 208-9443
     E-mail: brad@montgomeryponder.com
             luke@montgomeryponder.com


NPAS INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Fausz" Partially Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Charles R. Simpson, III, of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted
in part NPAS, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the case
captioned, ELLA J. FAUSZ, individually, and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. NPAS, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-00145-CRS-DW (W.D. Ky.).

Plaintiff Ella Fausz, individually and behalf of a putative class
of similarly situated persons, sued NPAS, Inc. asserting claims
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692 et seq. Fausz contends that NPAS's February 2014
letter contained false, deceptive, or misleading representations
and thus violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(11) because NPAS failed
to identify itself or a debt collector or provide that any
information it obtained would be used for a debt collection
purpose (Count I). She seeks actual damages and statutory damages
up to one-thousand dollars per 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k for each
member of the putative class. Fausz also seeks an injunction
preventing NPAS from violating the FDCPA, and attorney fees and
costs.

NPAS sent Fausz a letter to collect the unpaid patient account
balance. As Fausz did not pay her medical debt by December 2012,
the hospital recorded in its account ledger that it estimated it
would receive $0.00 in revenue on the debt.

NPAS now moves for summary judgment on Fausz's claims under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). NPAS argues that the Court
should grant its motion for summary judgment for four reasons.
First, NPAS asserts that Fausz lacks Article III standing to
assert the action because she has not suffered a concrete injury
in fact. Second, NPAS contends that it is not a debt collector
because Fausz's account was not in default when it sent her the
February 2014 letter and thus that it could not violate the FDCPA
as a matter of law. Third, NPAS asserts that Fausz's claims fail
as a matter of law because she has not pled and cannot show that
it made any misrepresentations in the February 2014 letter that
materially impacted her decision-making. Fourth and finally, NPAS
argues that, even if it acted as a debt collector subject to the
requirements of the FDCPA, it may claim the bona fide error
defense.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated February 22, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/ewuOLg from Leagle.com, Judge Simpson granted NPAS's
motion for summary judgment on Count I because there is not a
genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether NPAS's
omissions in its letter were material and denied as to Count II
because Fausz's remaining claim is inappropriate at the time since
there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether NPAS
may claim the protections of the bona fide error defense.

The matter will be referred to the magistrate judge for
scheduling.

Ella J. Fausz is represented by Zachary L. Taylor, Esq. --
ztaylro@taylorlawcenter.com -- and -- Nina B. Couch, Esq. --
ncouch@taylorlawcenter.com -- COUCH LAW, PLLC

NPAS, Inc, is  represented by John P. Boyle, Esq. --
John.Boyle@lawmoss.com --  and -- Micheal S. Poncin, Esq. --
Mike.Poncin@lawmoss.com -- MOSS & BARNETT, PA -- Kent Wicker, Esq.
-- kwicker@dbllaw.com -- DRESSMAN BENZINGER LAVELLE PSC


OBESITY RESEARCH: Bozic Appeals Transfer of Case to E.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Regina Bozic filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to
correct Judge Cynthia Bashant's alleged erroneous order dated
January 31, 2017, granting the Defendants' motion to stay the
action titled REGINA BOZIC, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. HENNY DEN UIJL, et
al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00733-BAS-MDD, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, San Diego, or
alternatively, transfer the action to the Eastern District of
California for consolidation with an earlier-filed action under
the "first-to-file" rule.

The Respondent is the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 13, 2017, the
case was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California (Sacramento).  The Eastern District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00222-MCE-EFB to the proceeding.

The appellate case is captioned as Regina Bozic v. USDC-CASD, Case
No. 17-70614, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner REGINA BOZIC, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, is represented
by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael Houchin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  mike@consumersadvocates.com

Real Parties in Interest HENNY DEN UIJL, an individual; SANDRA DEN
UIJL, an individual; BRYAN CORLETT, an individual; OBESITY
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, a California Limited Liability Company;
CONTINUITY PRODUCTS, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
NATIONAL WEIGHT LOSS INSTITUTE, a California Limited Liability
Company; ZODIAC FOUNDATION, a California Limited Liability
Company; and INNOTRAC CORPORATION, a Georgia Corporation, are
represented by:

          Hazel Mae Pangan, Esq.
          Patrick Mulkern, Esq.
          Richard Paul Sybert, Esq.
          GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
          101 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 696-6700
          E-mail: hpangan@gordonrees.com
                  pmulkern@gordonrees.com
                  rsybert@gordonrees.com


OCWEN LOAN: Ala. Court Refuses to Entertain Couple's FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, RICHARD A. YEAGER and DEANA J. YEAGER,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:14cv117-MHT (M.D. Ala.), Judge Myron H. Thompson of the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
rejected a magistrate judge's recommendation that Ocwen's renewed
motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied.

Plaintiffs Richard A. Yeager and Deana J. Yeager bring claims
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1692, et seq., against defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC for failing to provide a notice of debt validation by the
deadline prescribed by the statute. They claim that Ocwen Loan
violated their statutory procedural right to timely receipt of the
validation notice required by the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g(a). They allege that the company did not provide all of the
information in the validation notice within five days of the
company's initial contact on March 15, 2013. The Yeagers' claim
rests solely on the contention that the company failed to comply
with the validation-notice requirement until 13 days after the
statutory deadline.

Ocwen Loan filed an answer and a motion for judgment on the
pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) and 12(h)(2)-(h)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the Yeagers lacked
standing because the validation notice to which they say they were
entitled was in fact sent to them by the company the day after it
acquired servicing rights to their loan.

On the magistrate judge's recommendation, the court denied that
motion "with leave to Ocwen Loan to renew its standing arguments
at any time after the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, 135 S.Ct. 1892 (2015). After the Supreme Court released
its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016),
Ocwen Loan renewed its motion for judgment on the pleadings as to
the issue of standing, the magistrate judge recommended denying
the motion.

Ocwen Loan objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation
arguing that the Yeagers have failed to satisfy the `concreteness'
aspect of the injury requirement.

In an Opinion dated February 22, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/EEIcUA from Leagle.com, Judge Thompson found that
the Yeagers have failed to establish they suffered a concrete
injury sufficient to sustain Article III standing, accordingly,
the court may not entertain their FDCPA suit. Ocwen Loan's renewed
motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.

Richard A. Yeager is represented by Earl Price Underwood, Jr.,
Esq. -- epunderwood@alalaw.com -- and -- Kenneth Joseph Riemer,
Esq. -- jkriemer@alalaw.com -- UNDERWOOD & RIEMER, PC

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC is represented by Michael R. Pennington,
Esq. -- mpennington@bradley.com -- and -- Robert J. Campbell, Esq.
-- rcampbell@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP


OPTUM360 LLC: "Mauthe" Files Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OPTUM360, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00945-JLS (E.D. Pa., March 1, 2017), alleges that
Defendant sent Plaintiff at least one advertisement by facsimile
offering goods, products, or services available for purchase from
optumcoding.com or optum360coding.com, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Optum360, LLC operates a platform to provide healthcare services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard Shenkan, Esq.
     SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
     P.O. Box 7255
     New Castle, PA 16107
     Phone: (248) 562-1320
     Fax: (888) 769-1774
     E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

        - and -

     Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
     BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
     134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 658-5500
     Fax: (312) 658-5555
     E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com


P.F. CHANG'S: Faces "Rabanal" Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEOMAR RABANAL, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO,
INC.; P.F. CHANG'S III, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. RC17851208 (Cal. Super., Alameda County,
March 1, 2017), arises out of the policy and practice of
Defendants to record and/or monitor, without the consent of all
parties, consumer initiated telephone calls made or routed to
Defendants' toll-free customer service telephone numbers without
warning or disclosing to inbound callers that their calls might be
recorded or monitored in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.

P.F. Chang's is a restaurant chain with locations all across the
country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric A. Grover, Esq.
     Rachael G. Jung, Esq.
     KELLER GROVER LLP
     1965 Market Street
     Sar. Francisco, CA 94103
     Phone: (415)543-1305
     Fax: (415) 543-7861
     E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
             riung@kellergrovcr.com

        - and -

     Scot Bernstein, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN
     101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
     Folsom, CA 95630
     Phone: (916)447-0100
     Fax: (916) 933-5533
     E-mail: swampadero@bernsteinlaw.com


PACIFIC WEST: Faces "Applebaum" Suit for Misleading Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARNOLD N. APPLEBAUM, individually on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC WEST CAPITAL
GROUP, INC.; ANDREW B. CALHOUN IV, an individual; and MILLS,
POTOCZAK & COMPANY, PC, as Trustee of the PWCG TRUST; and DOES 1
through 30, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 652 409 (Cal.,
Super., March 1, 2017), alleges violations of the California
Corporations Code in the sale of fractionalized interests in
universal life insurance policies, or "life settlements," by
Defendants.  Pacific West and Calhoun sell investments structured
around when life insurance policies "mature" (when the insured
dies) and the benefits are paid.

Allegedly, Pacific West and Calhoun have, among other things,
misled investors about, inter alia, their likely annual returns,
the risks that investors would have to make future, out-of-pocket
payments to keep the policies in force to protect their principal,
the amount of expected future premiums, the data utilized in
choosing investments, and that the investments had nothing to do
with Pacific West's efforts and fortunes.

The PWCG Trust purchases life insurance policies in its name as
instructed by Pacific West and issues interests in those policies
to investors solicited by Pacific West.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Esq.
     Kevin Gamamik, Esq.
     FOLEY, BEZEK, BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
     15 West Carrillo Street
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Phone: (805) 962-9495
     Fax: (805) 962-0722
     E-mail: tfoley@foleybezek.com
             kgamarnik@foleybezek.com

        - and -

     Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
     Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
     DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC
     440 West First Street, Suite 101
     Tustin, CA 92780
     Phone: (714) 953-1010
     Fax: (714) 953-1777
     E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
             skokonas@donahoo.com


PANERA BREAD: Defends "Friscia" Suit in New Jersey District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company is defending itself against a purported class
action lawsuit filed by Jacqueline Friscia in New Jersey,
according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 27, 2016.

On June 26, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company by Jacqueline Friscia, an employee of one of
the Company's subsidiaries.  The lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law on behalf
of the plaintiff and all similarly situated non-exempt assistant
managers.  The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and
class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the
Court might find just and proper.

The Company says it has retained counsel to represent the Company
in this matter and believes that it has meritorious defenses to
the allegations asserted in the case.

Panera Bread Company is a national bakery-cafe concept with 2,036
Company-owned and franchise-operated bakery-cafe locations in 46
states, the District of Columbia, and Ontario, Canada.


PANERA BREAD: Settlement of Wage & Hour Suits Win Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2016, that the terms and conditions
of the parties' settlement agreement have received preliminary
approval from California Superior Courts.

On July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against one of the Company's subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a
former employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit
was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside.
The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.

In addition, several other purported class action lawsuits based
on similar claims and seeking similar relief were filed against
the subsidiary: on October 30, 2015 in the California Superior
Court, County of San Bernardino by Jazmin Dabney, a former
subsidiary employee; on November 3, 2015 in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of California by Clara
Manchester, a former subsidiary employee; and on November 30, 2015
in the California Superior Court, County of Yolo by Tanner
Maginnis, a current subsidiary assistant manager.

On May 6, 2016, the parties of all four pending cases reached a
Memorandum of Understanding For Three Settlement Classes regarding
the class action lawsuits. Under the terms of the agreement, the
Company agreed to pay an immaterial amount to purported class
members, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, Private Attorney General Act
payments, and costs of administering the settlement. The
Memorandum of Agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing. The
terms and conditions of the parties' settlement agreement have
received preliminary approval from California Superior Courts.

The Company says it maintained an appropriate accrual in accrued
expenses for this settlement in the Company's Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of December 27, 2016.

Panera Bread Company is a national bakery-cafe concept with 2,036
Company-owned and franchise-operated bakery-cafe locations in 46
states, the District of Columbia, and Ontario, Canada.


PENNSYLVANIA: PHEAA Faces "Salvatore" Class Suit in M.D. Penn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Pennsylvania
Higher Education Assistance Agency a/k/a PHEAA a/k/a FedLoan
Servicing.

The case is captioned Danielle Salvatore, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania Higher
Education Assistance Agency a/k/a PHEAA a/k/a FedLoan Servicing,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00385-YK (M.D. Penn., March 1, 2017).

Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency is the quasi-
governmental agency that administers several State higher
education student financial aid programs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
      PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC
      818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
      St. Louis, MO 63104
      Telephone: (314) 833-4825
      E-mail: bwise@prwlegal.com

         - and -

      Marion K. Munley, Esq.
      MUNLEY, MUNLEY & CARTWRIGHT
      The Forum Plaza
      227 Penn Avenue
      Scranton, PA 18503
      Telephone: (570) 346-7401
      E-mail: mmunley@munley.com

PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Fisher and Fish industry Subclass Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Andrews et al., the Plaintiffs v. Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-
04113-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez entered an
order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for
class certification, and denying motions to strike, the Court:

   1. certifies the fisher and fish industry subclass, but denies
      Plaintiffs' certification for the property owner, oil
      industry, and tourism industry subclasses because
      Plaintiffs have not shown that those classes satisfy the
      Rule's predominance requirement;

   2. denies Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, given
      that the Court has found that a single injunction cannot be
      crafted to meet the class's varying needs; and

   3. appoints counsel at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
      LLP, Keller Rohrback, L.L.P., Cappello & Noel, and Audet &
      Partners as lead counsel for the fisheries subclass.

The litigation arises from an oil spill that occurred at Refugio
State Beach near Santa Barbara County on May 19, 2015. In the
aftermath of the oil spill, and as early as June 1, 2015,
Plaintiffs started to file class action complaints with the Court.
On November 9, 2015, the Court consolidated many of the cases into
this lead case, Andrews et al. v. Plains All American
Pipeline, L.P. et al., and administratively closed all other
related cases.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c51YhrAV


PRICELINE GROUP: "Laquer" Suit Transferred to Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Richard Laquer, individually
and as Class Representative of all similarly situated citizens who
transacted business with The Priceline Group Inc. v.  Priceline
Group, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-00159, was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The
District Court Clerk assigned 3:17-mc-00034-MPS to the proceeding.

Priceline Group, Inc. is a provider of travel and related online
services to consumers and local partners through six primary
brands: Booking.com, Priceline.com, agoda.com, KAYAK,
Rentalcars.com and OpenTable.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anton J. Rupert, Esq.
      Darren M. Tawwater, Esq.
      Geren Steiner, Esq.
      Larry A. Tawwater, Esq.
      TAWWATER LAW FIRM PLLC
      One Tsquared Place
      14001 Quail Springs Parkway
      Oklahoma City, OK 73134
      Telephone: (405) 607-1495
      Facsimile: (405) 607-1450
      E-mail: tony@rupertsteinerlaw.com
              dtaw@tawlaw.com
              geren@rupertsteinerlaw.com
              lat@tawlaw.com


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: "Pineda" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
GUS PINEDA, Plaintiff, v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES, a
Washington nonprofit; PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, a California nonprofit; PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES
FOUNDATION/SAN FERNANDO AND SANTA CLARITA VALLEYS SERVICE AREAS, a
California nonprofit; DOES 1-10, business entities; DOES 11-20,
individuals; and DOES 21-30, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC
652 459 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, March 2, 2017),
alleges failure to pay wages promptly after termination; failure
to provide accurate and itemized wage statements; failure to
provide uninterrupted rest periods; failure to provide
uninterrupted meal periods; failure to pay overtime wages; failure
to pay minimum wages, liquidated damages for failure to pay
minimum wages; failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair
business practices.

Providence Health System is a not-for-profit organization which
includes hospitals, clinics, senior services, supportive housing.

The purported Class Members consist of all non-exempt/hourly
current and former employees, including "Security Officers" or
similar job titles to perform security and monitoring tasks at
Defendants' health care facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Cody D. Knight, Esq.
     Chantal Mccoy, Esq.
     Mahru Madjidi, Esq.
     KNIGHT EMPLOYMENT LAW
     11500 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Phone: (310) 444-3039
     Fax: (310) 870-7207
     E-mail: CodvKnight@KnightEmplovmentLaw.com
             ChantalMcCov@KnightEmplovmentLaw.com
             MMadiidi@KnightEmplovmentLaw.com


QUEMETCO INC: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Alleging Non-Payment of Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
SALVADOR C. RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. QUEMETCO, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 652 619
(Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, March 2, 2017), alleges that
Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages,
including overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees in the State of California in violation of the
California state wage and hour laws as a result of, including but
not limited to, unevenly rounding off time worked.

Defendants, QUEMETCO, INC., a California corporation, provides
battery recycling services.  Plaintiff is a maintenance mechanic.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Nourmand, Esq.
     James A. De Sario, Esq.
     THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
     8822 West Olympic Boulevard
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Phone (310) 553-3600
     Fax: (310) 553-3603


R & S QUALITY: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ahmed Eikhamissy, individually and R & S
Quality Construction Corp., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01155
(E.D.N.Y., March 1, 2017), seeks recovery of alleged unpaid wages
and related damages for unpaid overtime hours worked under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendant is a construction company.  Plaintiff was employed
as a construction worker.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
     THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
     39 Broadway Suite 1530
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: 212 344 9022
     Fax: 212 344 0301


RELIABLE COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Diana Kleckley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Reliable Collection Agency, Inc. and S. Robert Cygan,
Esq., Case No. 2:17-cv-01442-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., March 1, 2017),
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

The Defendants own and operate a debt collection agency in New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
      LAWRENCE HERSH, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
      Rutherford, NJ 07070
      Telephone: (201) 507-6300
      E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


RELIANCE TRUST: Class Certification Status Hearing Set for May 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Gary Feinerman entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
Altavia Matthews Plaintiff, v. Reliance Trust Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04773 (N.D. Ill.), continuing status
hearing of Plaintiff's motion for class certification May 3, 2017
at 9:00 a.m.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 27,
2017, Defendant's motion to suspend class certification briefing
pending additional discovery is granted. The Defendant shall
respond by May 22, 2017 and reply is due by June 6, 2017. The
Defendant's motion for leave to file document under seal is
granted.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0RHctQ1o


RELIANT CAPITAL: Joint Class Certification Bid Filed in "Etienne"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ESTHER ETIENNE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RELIANT
CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02359-WFK-
JO (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties will jointly move the Court for an
Order certifying the case to proceed as a class action, and
granting preliminary approval of the settlement, on behalf of the
following class:

   "all consumers nationwide who were sent collection letters
   and/or notices from Defendant attempting to collect an
   obligation owed to or allegedly owed to Touro College which
   state an amount due on which interest or other charges were
   accruing, but which failed to state that interest or other
   charges may be accruing on that amount".

The Plaintiff filed the class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging that RCS violated
the FDCPA by sending consumers written collection communications
that misrepresented the amount of the debt.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Tom2ATCS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-Mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Arthur Sanders, Esq.
          BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.
          30 South Main Street
          New City, NY 10956


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dawson" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kapidra Dawson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Retrieval-Masters Creditor's Bureau, Inc.
d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 1:17-cv-01119
(E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Retrieval-Masters Creditor's Bureau, Inc. operates a debt
collection firm in Elmsford, New York.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit v. American Tobacco Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Young v. American
Tobacco Co., Inc. (Cir. Ct. Orleans Parish, La., filed 1997), the
plaintiff brought a class action against U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson, and
parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR,
on behalf of a putative class of Louisiana residents who, though
not themselves cigarette smokers, allegedly suffered injury as a
result of exposure to ETS from cigarettes manufactured by
defendants. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount
of compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2016, the court
entered an order staying the case, including all discovery,
pending the completion of the smoking cessation program ordered by
the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit v. A C & S Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Parsons v. A C & S,
Inc. (Cir. Ct. Ohio County, W. Va., filed 1998), the plaintiff
brought a class action against asbestos manufacturers, U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard
Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR and Lorillard, on behalf of a putative class of
persons who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from
their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.
The plaintiff seeks to recover $1 million in compensatory and
punitive damages individually for her purported injuries and an
unspecified amount for the class in compensatory and punitive
damages.

In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North America and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.

Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants who filed for
bankruptcy. The case remains pending against the other defendants,
including RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco, but it has long been
dormant.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit v. American Tobacco Dormant
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Jones v. American
Tobacco Co., Inc. (Cir. Ct., Jackson County, Mo., filed 1998), the
plaintiff filed a class action against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson,
Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, on behalf of a
putative class of Missouri tobacco product users and purchasers
who allegedly became addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. There is
currently no activity in this case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Lorillard Defending 78 Filter Cases
------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that as of December 31, 2016,
Lorillard Tobacco and/or Lorillard was a defendant in 78 Filter
Cases.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard
by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a
predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago.

As of December 31, 2016, Lorillard Tobacco and/or Lorillard was a
defendant in 78 Filter Cases.

Since January 1, 2013, Lorillard Tobacco and RJR Tobacco have
paid, or have reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately
$47.6 million in settlements to resolve 175 claims asserted in
Filter Cases.

Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard
Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the
filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify
Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and
resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished
products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter
material.

On September 13, 2013, the jury in a Filter Case, DeLisle v. A. W.
Chesterton Co. (Cir. Ct. Broward County, Fla., filed 2012), found
for the plaintiffs on the negligence and strict liability claims;
awarded the plaintiffs $8 million in compensatory damages; and
found Lorillard Tobacco 22% at fault, Hollingsworth & Vose 22% at
fault, and the other defendants 56% at fault. Punitive damages
were not at issue. On November 6, 2013, the trial court entered
final judgment against Lorillard Tobacco in the amount of $3.52
million. Lorillard Tobacco appealed to the Fourth DCA. On
September 14, 2016, the Fourth DCA ordered a new trial because the
trial court erred in admitting certain expert testimony and
concluded that the $8 million compensatory damages award should
have been remitted.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing
or rehearing en banc, which was denied by the Fourth DCA on
November 9, 2016. The plaintiffs filed an application for
discretionary review by the Florida Supreme Court on December 6,
2016.

The Florida Supreme Court has issued a stay of the proceedings in
that court pending its disposition of a pending application for
review in another case.  The matter has not been stayed in the
trial court, and post-appeal motions are pending to vacate the
final judgment and discharge the surety bonds. The plaintiffs have
filed both a stay motion in the Florida Supreme Court and a motion
to recall the mandate in the Fourth DCA, which motions are
presently pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Bourassa" Class Action in Canada Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that seven putative class
actions have been filed against various Canadian and non-Canadian
tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its
affiliates, in Canadian provincial courts. In these cases, the
plaintiffs allege claims based on fraud, fraudulent concealment,
breach of warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability, and of
fitness for a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects,
negligence, breach of a "special duty" to children and
adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust enrichment,
market share liability, and violations of various trade practices
and competition statutes. The plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf
of proposed classes of persons allegedly suffering from tobacco-
related disease as a result of smoking defendants' cigarettes and
seek recovery of compensatory and punitive damages, restitution,
recovery of government health-care benefits, interest, and costs.

Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these seven actions to JTI. Subject to a reservation of
rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current
or former affiliates in these actions. Plaintiffs' counsel have
been actively pursuing only the case, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Ltd., pending in British Columbia, at this time.

The seven putative class action lawsuits are:

* In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ct. of
Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Jud. Centre, filed 2009), the plaintiff
seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class of persons who purchased or smoked defendants' cigarettes
and suffered, or currently suffer, from tobacco-related disease,
as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government
expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use
of tobacco products.

* In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ct. of
Queen's Bench, Alberta Jud. Centre of Calgary - filed 2009), the
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class of persons who purchased or smoked defendants'
cigarettes and suffered, or currently suffer, from tobacco-related
disease, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of
government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused
by the use of tobacco products.

* In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Sup. Ct.
Nova Scotia, Halifax, filed 2009), the plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of persons who purchased or smoked defendants'
cigarettes for the period from January 1, 1954, to the expiry of
the opt-out period as set by the court and suffered, or currently
suffer, from tobacco-related disease, as well as restitution of
profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-
care costs allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.

* In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ct. of
Queen's Bench, Jud. Centre of Regina, filed 2009), the plaintiff
seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class of persons who were alive on July 10, 2009, and suffered, or
currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum
of 25,000 of defendants' cigarettes, as well as disgorgement of
revenues earned by the defendants. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate
have brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the
Saskatchewan court.

* In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. (Sup. Ct. of British
Columbia, Victoria Registry, filed 2010), the plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of
persons who were alive on June 12, 2007, and suffered, or
currently suffer, from chronic respiratory diseases, after having
smoked a minimum of 25,000 of defendants' cigarettes, as well as
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its
affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the
British Columbia court. The plaintiff filed a motion for
certification in April 2012, and filed affidavits in support in
August 2013. An amended claim was filed in December 2014.

* In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. (Sup. Ct. of British
Columbia, Victoria Registry, filed 2010), the plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of
persons who were alive on June 12, 2007, and suffered, or
currently suffer, from heart disease, after having smoked a
minimum of 25,000 of defendants' cigarettes, as well as
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its
affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the
British Columbia court.

* In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ontario
Super. Ct. of Justice, St. Catherines, filed 2012), the plaintiff
seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class of persons who were alive on June 12, 2007, and suffered, or
currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
heart disease, or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000
of defendants' cigarettes, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits
allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: May 2017 Trial for 5 West Virginia IPIC Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in the West Virginia
IPIC, five cases were selected to be the first claims tried, and
they were tentatively scheduled to be tried beginning on May 1,
2017.

In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases (Cir.
Ct. Ohio County, W. Va., filed beginning in 1999), is a series of
roughly 1,200 individual cases asserting claims against Philip
Morris USA Inc., Lorillard Tobacco, RJR Tobacco, B&W and The
American Tobacco Company based on alleged personal injuries. The
cases were consolidated for a Phase I trial on various defense
conduct issues, to be followed in Phase II by individual trials of
remaining claims.

On May 15, 2013, the Phase I jury found that defendants'
cigarettes were not defectively designed; defendants' cigarettes
were not defective due to a failure to warn before July 1, 1969;
defendants were not negligent, did not breach warranties, and did
not engage in conduct warranting punitive damages; and defendants'
ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold between 1964
and July 1, 1969 were defective for a failure to instruct. In
November 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the
verdict.

On June 8, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs'
petition for writ of certiorari. On the same date, the trial court
issued an order finding that only 30 plaintiffs are alleged to
have smoked ventilated filter cigarettes in the relevant period.

On October 9, 2015, the trial court outlined the procedures for
resolving the claims of the 30 Phase II plaintiffs, which claims
will focus on whether plaintiffs blocked cigarette vents and, if
so, whether blocking proximately caused their alleged injuries.
Five cases were selected to be the first claims tried, and they
were tentatively scheduled to be tried beginning on May 1, 2017.

In June 2016, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel
and required the plaintiffs to file additional expert disclosures
necessary to attempt to proceed with their claims. The court will
set a revised discovery and trial schedule after the expert
disclosures are tested for admissibility, and it pushed the
tentative trial date to May 2018.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Bid to Dismiss Smokeless Tobacco Claims Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a trial court has denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss claims as abandoned in the
Smokeless Tobacco Litigation.

In 1999, when the IPIC litigation was first filed, the named
defendants included manufacturers of smokeless products, including
Conwood Company, LLC (now known as American Snuff Company, LLC)
and others. When the IPIC plaintiffs filed discovery responses in
IPIC listing the products they used, 41 of them listed a smokeless
product. Six of those 41 plaintiffs listed a brand owned by
American Snuff (Levi Garrett). Seven listed a brand (Beechnut)
once manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco (now manufactured by
National Tobacco Company).

On December 3, 2001, the IPIC court severed all smokeless claims
and all smokeless defendants from IPIC. There was no order staying
the case during IPIC. In the ensuing 15 years, the plaintiffs in
the severed cases did nothing to pursue the cases. The plaintiffs
now seek to activate various smokeless claims, including certain
plaintiffs whose cases were dismissed in IPIC after severance of
the smokeless claims and whose claims are not counted in the 41
claims described.

After a status conference on July 11, 2016, the court set a
schedule for briefing the issue of whether the severed claims
should be dismissed because of the prolonged inaction in the case.
On January 25, 2017, the trial court denied the defendants' motion
to dismiss those claims as abandoned.  The plaintiffs are now free
to move forward with their claims.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal in ERISA Litigation Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a decision is pending in
the appeal in the ERISA Litigation.

In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging
that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as
ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a
decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently
renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin
off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food
business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the
previously related entities had to be divided into two separate
plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses.

The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the
defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved in
the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as
Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan
approximately six months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts
that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that
eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on
January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the
defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after
January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion
was a breach of fiduciary duty.

In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among other things, that
the court require the defendants to pay as damages to the RJR
401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent appreciation that
was purportedly lost as a result of the liquidation of the NGH and
Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot.

In April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in
part, dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee. The plaintiff
filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted in
September 2008.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. On
February 25, 2013, the district court dismissed the case with
prejudice, finding that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary could
have made the same decision and thus the plan's loss was not
caused by the procedural prudence which the court found to have
existed.

On August 4, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, referred
to as Fourth Circuit, reversed, holding that the district court
applied the wrong standard when it held that the defendants did
not cause any loss to the plan, determined the test was whether a
hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have made the same decision
and remanded the case back to the district court to apply the
"would have standard."

On February 18, 2016, the district court dismissed the case with
prejudice, finding that the defendants have shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that a fiduciary acting with
prudence would have divested the NGH and Nabisco Funds at the time
and in the manner that the defendants did.

On March 17, 2016, the plaintiff appealed arguing that the
district court erred in finding that a hypothetical prudent
fiduciary would have divested the NGH and Nabisco Funds at the
same time and in the same manner as RJR.

Briefing before the Fourth Circuit is complete.  Oral argument
occurred on January 25, 2017. A decision is pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: BAT's Motion for Rehearing En Banc Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in a shareholder
litigation, an appeals court has denied British American Tobacco's
motion for rehearing en banc of the Court of Appeals' opinion.

RAI, the members of the RAI board of directors and BAT have been
named as defendants in a putative class-action lawsuit captioned
Corwin v. British American Tobacco PLC, et al., brought in North
Carolina state court, referred to as the North Carolina Action, by
a person identifying himself as a shareholder of RAI. The North
Carolina Action was initiated on August 8, 2014, and an amended
complaint was filed on November 7, 2014.

The amended complaint generally alleges, among other things, that
the members of the RAI board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to RAI shareholders by approving the BAT Share Purchase and
the sharing of technology with BAT, as well as that there were
various conflicts of interest in the transaction.

More specifically, the amended complaint alleges that (1) RAI
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by its
board of directors and (2) BAT was a controlling shareholder of
RAI and, as a consequence, owed other RAI shareholders fiduciary
duties in connection with the BAT Share Purchase. The North
Carolina Action seeks injunctive relief, damages and reimbursement
of costs, among other remedies.

On January 2, 2015, the plaintiff in the North Carolina Action
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin
temporarily the RAI shareholder meeting and votes scheduled for
January 28, 2015. RAI and the RAI board of directors timely
opposed that motion prior to a hearing that was scheduled to occur
on January 16, 2015.

RAI believed that the North Carolina Action was without merit and
that no further disclosure was necessary to supplement the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws. However, to
eliminate certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties, on January
17, 2015, RAI and the director defendants in the North Carolina
Action entered into the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding
regarding the settlement of the disclosure claims asserted in that
lawsuit.

The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms
of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release the
disclosure claims which were or could have been asserted in the
North Carolina Action. In consideration of the partial settlement
and release, RAI agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures
to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which it did on January
20, 2015.

On August 4, 2015, the trial court granted the defendants' motions
to dismiss all of the remaining non-disclosure claims. The
plaintiff appealed.

On February 17, 2016, the trial court approved the partial
settlement, including the plaintiff's unopposed request for
$415,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. The partial settlement did
not affect the consideration paid to Lorillard shareholders in
connection with the Lorillard Merger.

On December 20, 2016, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court's dismissal of the claims against RAI and RAI's
Board of Directors on the grounds that the plaintiff could not
state a direct claim against RAI's Board of Directors for breach
of fiduciary duties.  The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal
of the claims against BAT.

On January 4, 2017, BAT filed a motion for rehearing en banc of
the Court of Appeals' opinion, which was denied on February 2,
2017.


SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: "Curiel" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO J. CURIEL as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
BC 652703 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, March 2, 2017),
alleges that Defendants' alleged willful failure to timely pay
Plaintiff and the members of the Waiting Time Penalty Class their
earned wages upon separation from employment results in a
continued payment of wages up to thirty days from the time the
wages were due in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendant manufactures, installs, and services automotive
windshields and glass.  Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a
non-exempt employee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul K. Haines, Esq.
     Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
     Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
     HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
     2274 East Maple Ave.
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Phone: (424) 292-2350
     Fax: (424) 292-2355
     E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
             tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
             sblakely@haineslawgroup.com


SAFEWAY INC: "Altamirano" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
LINDA ALTAMIRANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAFEWAY, INC., and DOE ONE
through and including DOE ONE HUNDRED, Defendant, Case No. RG
17851392 (Cal. Super., County of Alameda, March 2, 2017), accuses
Defendants of failing to pay Plaintiff with wages upon
termination; and knowingly and intentionally failing to timely
furnish the proper itemized wage statements under the Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act and the California Labor Code.

Safeway Inc. operates as a food and drug retailer in the United
States. The Plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of non-exempt
employees of Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alan Harris, Esq.
     HARRIS & RUBLE
     655 N. Central Ave. 17th Floor
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Phone: 123.962.3777
     Fax: 323.962.3004
     E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Pronstroller" Sues Over Washing Machines
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRACY PRONSTROLLER, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., THE HOME DEPOT, INC., LOWE'S
COMPANIES, INC., BEST BUY CO., INC., SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00163 (W.D. Tex., March 1, 2017), was
brought over the recalled Samsung home washing machines of model
number WA56H9000AP/A2.

Plaintiff in the case seeks relief in the form of: (1) an
injunction against Defendants from any further sales of the
Recalled Washing Machines and to take such other remedial action
as may otherwise be requested herein; and (2) money damages to
adequately and reasonably compensate owners of the Recalled
Washing Machines who have, through no fault of their own,
purchased defective and dangerous Samsung washing machines.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics
and digital products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William B. Federman, Esq.
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     2926 Maple Ave.
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: (405) 235-1560
     Fax: (405) 239-2112
     E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Appeals Decision in "Mendis" Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Schneider National Carriers, Inc., filed an appeal from
a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled Balapuwaduge Mendis,
et al. v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00144-JCC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was initiated in the King County Superior Court (Case No. 14-2-
34534-8 SEA) and was later removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington (Seattle).

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Balapuwaduge Mendis, et al. v.
Schneider National Carriers, Inc., Case No. 17-80025, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Respondents BALAPUWADUGE MENDIS, On his own behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; MICHAEL FEOLA, on
their own behalf and on the behalf of all others similarly
situated; ANDREA ARBAUGH, on her own behalf and on the behalf of
all others similarly situated; and EDWARD ASH, On his own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
          Toby James Marshall, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
          E-mail: enusser@tmdwlaw.com
                  tmarshall@tmdwlaw.com

               - and -

          Hardeep Rekhi, Esq.
          REKHI & WOLK, P.S.
          529 Warren Avenue N., Suite 201
          Seattle, WA 98109
          Telephone: (206) 388-5887
          Facsimile: (206) 577-3924
          E-mail: hardeep@rekhiwolk.com

Defendant-Petitioner SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., a Nevada
Corporation, is represented by:

          Matthew Kane, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
          E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Katherine Grace Mims Crocker, Esq.
          Brandon Hasbrouck, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          Gateway Plaza
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-4747
          Facsimile: (804) 698-2184
          E-mail: kcrocker@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Phillips, Esq.
          Brian E. Spang, Esq.
          Joel H. Spitz, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 750-8902
          Facsimile: (312) 920-6181
          E-mail: mphillips@mcguirewoods.com
                  bspang@mcguirewoods.com
                  jspitz@mcguirewoods.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: Stanford Trust-Related Suits Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Several lawsuits arising from a subsidiary's provision of back-
office services to Stanford Trust Company remain pending,
according to SEI Investments Company's February 22, 2017, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

SEI has been named in seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts;
four of the cases also name SEI Private Trust Company as a
defendant. The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the
purported role of SPTC in providing back-office services to
Stanford Trust Company. The complaints allege that SEI and SPTC
participated in some manner in the sale of "certificates of
deposit" issued by Stanford International Bank so as to be a
"seller" of the certificates of deposit for purposes of primary
liability under the Louisiana Securities Law or so as to be
secondarily liable under that statute for sales of certificates of
deposit made by Stanford Trust Company. Two of the actions also
include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act
and possibly conspiracy, and a third also asserts claims of
negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent
misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the
Louisiana Racketeering Act, and conspiracy.

The procedural status of the seven cases varies. The Lillie case,
filed originally in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge, was brought as a class action and is
procedurally the most advanced of the cases. SEI and SPTC filed
exceptions, which the Court granted in part, dismissing claims
under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and permitting the
claims under the Louisiana Securities Law to go forward. On March
11, 2013, newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana. On August 7, 2013, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the matter to the Northern
District of Texas where MDL 2099, In re: Stanford Entities
Securities Litigation ("the Stanford MDL"), is pending. On
September 22, 2015, the District Court on the motion of SEI and
SPTC dismissed plaintiffs' claims for primary liability under
Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability under Section
714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law based on the allegations
pled by plaintiffs. On November 4, 2015, the District Court
granted SEI and SPTC's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under
Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law. Consequently, the
only claims of plaintiffs still pending before the District Court
in Lillie are plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against
SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law.
On May 2, 2016, the District Court certified the class as being
"all persons for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed
Stanford Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in
Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". Notice
of the pendency of the class action was mailed to potential class
members on October 4, 2016.

On December 1, 2016, a group of plaintiffs who opted out of the
Lillie class filed a complaint against SEI and SPTC in the United
States District Court in the Middle District of Louisiana,
alleging claims essentially the same as those in Lillie. In
January 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the proceeding to the Northern District of Texas and
the Stanford MDL. SEI's response to the Complaint is expected to
be filed during the first quarter of 2017.

Another one of the cases, filed in the 23rd Judicial District
Court for the Parish of Ascension, also was removed to federal
court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to the Northern District of Texas and the Stanford MDL.
The schedule for responding to that Complaint has not yet been
established.

The plaintiffs in two of the cases remaining in the Parish of East
Baton Rouge have granted SEI and SPTC indefinite extensions to
respond to the petitions.

In the two additional cases, filed in East Baton Rouge and brought
by the same counsel who filed the Lillie action, virtually all of
the litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate
litigation regarding the existence of federal subjection matter
jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA). After the matter was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that
court dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of
the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on
February 26, 2014. The matter was remanded to state court and no
material activity has taken place since that date.

While the outcome of this litigation remains uncertain, SEI and
SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims
and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Because of
uncertainty in the make-up of the Lillie class, the specific
theories of liability that may survive a motion for summary
judgment or other dispositive motion, the relative lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the lawsuits.

SEI Investments Company is a leading global provider of investment
processing, investment management and investment operations
solutions.  The Company helps corporations, financial
institutions, financial advisors, institutional investors and
ultra-high-net-worth families create and manage wealth by
providing comprehensive, innovative, investment and investment-
business solutions.  As of December 31, 2016, through its
subsidiaries and partnerships in which the company has a
significant interest, SEI manages or administers $751.1 billion in
hedge, private equity, mutual fund and pooled or separately
managed assets, including $283.1 billion in assets under
management and $468.0 billion in client assets under
administration.


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Bivens" Suit Over RESPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Bivens, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
00760-ODE-WEJ (N.D. Ga., March 2, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. operates a loan servicing company
headquartered in West Valley City, Utah.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne Charles, Esq.
      WAYNE CHARLES, PC
      395 Highgrove Drive
      Fayetteville, GA 30215
      Telephone: (770) 241-8936
      E-mail: wc115@bellsouth.net


SHIRE PLC: Sao Paulo's Class Claims in ELAPRASE Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals in Sao Paulo issued a final decision on merit
in favor of Shire plc and dismissed claims in a class action
relating to ELAPRASE, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On September 24, 2014, Shire's Brazilian affiliate, Shire
Farmaceutica Brasil Ltda, was served with a lawsuit brought by the
State of Sao Paulo and in which the Brazilian Public Attorney's
office has intervened alleging that Shire is obligated to provide
certain medical care including ELAPRASE for an indefinite period
at no cost to patients who participated in ELAPRASE clinical
trials in Brazil, and seeking recoupment to the Brazilian
government for amounts paid on behalf of these patients to date,
and moral damages associated with these claims.

On May 6, 2016, the trial court judge ruled on the case and
dismissed all the claims under the class action, which was
appealed.

On February 20, 2017, the Court of Appeals in Sao Paulo issued the
final decision on merit in favor of Shire and dismissed all the
claims under the class action. The final decision can be appealed
through the Superior Court of Justice or through the Supreme
Court; however, the Company says, the likelihood of one of those
courts accepting the appeal is remote.

Shire plc is a global biotechnology company focused on serving
people with rare diseases and other highly specialized conditions.


SODEXO INC: "Piveronas" Lawsuit Alleges FCRA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT PIVERONAS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, vs. SODEXO, INC., Defendant,
Case No. GD-17-003369 (Pa. Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, March 2, 2017), alleges that Defendant Sodexo, Inc. has
routinely and systematically violated the basic privacy
protections of customers under the Fair Credit Reporting Act by
failing to make required "clear, conspicuous and accurate"
disclosures to consumers before procuring their consumer reports
for employment purposes and in using those unlawfully obtained
consumer reports to preclude consumers from employment.

Sodexo Inc. provides outsourced food and facilities management
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Pietz, Esq.
     Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
     FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
     Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
     429 Fourth Avenue
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: 412-281-8400

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFF: Faces "Jacobson" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Southern
California Off Track Wagering, Inc., Northern California Off Track
Wagering, Inc., and Does 1-25.

The case is captioned Jeffery Jacobson, Linda Dixon, and Don
Barth, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
Southern California Off Track Wagering, Inc., Northern California
Off Track Wagering, Inc., and Does 1-25, Case No. RG17851150 (Cal.
Super. Ct., March 1, 2017).

The Defendants own and operate off track betting facilities in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
      WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
      1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
      Alameda, CA 94501
      Telephone: (510) 337-1001
      Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
      E-mail: drosenfeld@unioncounsel.net


SOUTHERN CO: Cook County Court Refuses to Certify Customers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that on February 8, 2017, a
state court judge denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and Southern Company Gas' motion for summary
judgment in the putative class action lawsuit pending in Cook
County, Illinois.

Northern Illinois Gas Company Gas and Nicor Energy Services
Company, wholly-owned subsidiaries of Southern Company Gas, and
Nicor Inc. are defendants in a putative class action initially
filed in 2011 in state court in Cook County, Illinois. The
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of the customers who
purchased the Gas Line Comfort Guard product from Nicor Energy
Services Company and variously allege that the marketing, sale,
and billing of the Gas Line Comfort Guard product violated the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
constituting common law fraud and resulting in unjust enrichment
of these entities. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the classes
they purport to represent, actual and punitive damages, interest,
costs, attorney fees, and injunctive relief.

On February 8, 2017, the judge denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and Southern Company Gas' motion for summary
judgment.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be
determined at this time.

Southern Company was incorporated under the laws of Delaware on
November 9, 1945. Southern Company is registered and qualified to
do business under the laws of Georgia and is qualified to do
business as a foreign corporation under the laws of Alabama.
Southern Company owns all of the outstanding common stock of
Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power,
each of which is an operating public utility company. The
traditional electric operating companies supply electric service
in the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi.
Southern Company owns all of the common stock of Southern Power
Company, which is also an operating public utility company.
Southern Power constructs, acquires, owns, and manages generation
assets, including renewable energy projects, and sells electricity
at market-based rates in the wholesale market.


SOUTHERN CO: Defends Securities Class Suit by Monroe County ERS
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company is defending itself and certain of its
subsidiaries against a purported class action lawsuit initiated by
the Monroe County Employees' Retirement System, according to the
Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On January 20, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed against Southern Company and certain of its and
Mississippi Power's officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, by Monroe County
Employees' Retirement System on behalf of all persons who
purchased shares of Southern Company's common stock between April
25, 2012 and October 29, 2013. The complaint alleges that Southern
Company and certain of its and Mississippi Power's officers made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Kemper
IGCC in violation of certain provisions under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaint seeks, among other
things, compensatory damages and litigation costs and attorneys'
fees.

Southern Company believes this legal challenge has no merit;
however, an adverse outcome in this proceeding could have an
impact on Southern Company's results of operations, financial
condition, and liquidity. Southern Company will vigorously defend
itself in this matter, and the ultimate outcome of this matter
cannot be determined at this time.

Southern Company was incorporated under the laws of Delaware on
November 9, 1945. Southern Company is registered and qualified to
do business under the laws of Georgia and is qualified to do
business as a foreign corporation under the laws of Alabama.
Southern Company owns all of the outstanding common stock of
Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power,
each of which is an operating public utility company. The
traditional electric operating companies supply electric service
in the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi.
Southern Company owns all of the common stock of Southern Power
Company, which is also an operating public utility company.
Southern Power constructs, acquires, owns, and manages generation
assets, including renewable energy projects, and sells electricity
at market-based rates in the wholesale market.


SOUTHERN CO: Has Filed for Writ of Certiorari in Georgia Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it has filed a petition
for writ of certiorari with the Georgia Supreme Court in
connection with the purported class action lawsuit pending in the
Superior Court of Fulton County.

In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the
Company in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging
that the Company's collection in rates of municipal franchise fees
(all of which are remitted to municipalities) exceeded the amounts
allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain state
tort law claims. On November 16, 2016, the Georgia Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court's previous dismissal of the case
and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
The Company has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the
Georgia Supreme Court.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims have no merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The Company
says the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at
this time.

Southern Company was incorporated under the laws of Delaware on
November 9, 1945. Southern Company is registered and qualified to
do business under the laws of Georgia and is qualified to do
business as a foreign corporation under the laws of Alabama.
Southern Company owns all of the outstanding common stock of
Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power,
each of which is an operating public utility company. The
traditional electric operating companies supply electric service
in the states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi.
Southern Company owns all of the common stock of Southern Power
Company, which is also an operating public utility company.
Southern Power constructs, acquires, owns, and manages generation
assets, including renewable energy projects, and sells electricity
at market-based rates in the wholesale market.


SPIRIT CRUISE: Midnight Party Cruise Passengers File Crash Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press, citing The Baltimore Sun, reports that more
than two dozen passengers on a midnight party cruise on a ship
that crashed into a pier in Baltimore last summer are suing the
vessel's company.

A total of 28 people have filed claims, ranging from $5,000 to $1
million, against Spirit Cruises LLC following the Aug. 28 crash.

Coast Guard investigators said about 400 people were aboard the
Spirit of Baltimore when the ship's captain dozed off and the
vessel struck the pier at Henderson Wharf Marina.

Two passengers were hospitalized with chest and back pain. Court
records show other passengers suffered injuries to their necks,
backs and knees.

An attorney for Spirit Cruises declined to comment on the case.
Officials say the captain was fired.


STANDARD PARKING: "Huda" Suit Alleges Violation of WARN Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
SARAH HUDA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs, v. STANDARD PARKING
CORPORATION IL, a Delaware corporation, SP PLUS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. BC 8522218 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, March 1,
2017), alleges that Plaintiffs who are former non-exempt,
employees were not provided sufficient notice of termination, and
were terminated on February 28,2017, without payment of all wages
due, and were not provided accurate wages, in violation of the
California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Defendant SP Plus is in the automobile parking management services
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raymond A. Gallenberg, Esq.
     Rosa Vigil-Gallenberg, Esq.
     GALLENBERG PC
     800 S Victory Blvd., Suite 203
     Burbank CA 91502
     Phone: (818)237-5267
     Fax: (818)330-5266
     E-mail: ray@gallenberglaw.com
     E-mail: rosa@gallenberglaw.com


STAR HOME: "Paradysz" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PARADYSZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, V. STAR HOME HEALTH, INC. and
CLEMENTINA IKWUEZUNMA, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00655 (S.D.
Tex., March 1, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff worked a significant
number of hours, including overtime hours, but Defendants did not
pay Plaintiff or other nurses overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants provide in home health care services. Plaintiff is a
licensed vocation nurse.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edwin Sullivan, Esq.
     OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP
     712 Main Street, Suite 900
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 401-3555
     Fax: (713) 401-3547
     E-mail: ed@osattorneys.com

        - and -

     Mark J. Oberti, Esq.
     OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP
     712 Main Street, Suite 900
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 401-3555
     Fax: (713) 401-3547
     E-mail: mark@osattorneys.com

        - and -

     Clayton D. Craighead, Esq.
     THE CRAIGHEAD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     440 Louisiana, Suite 900
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (832) 798-1184
     Fax: (832) 553-7261
     E-mail: clayton.craighead@thetxlawfirm.com


STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Summary Ruling in "Vaquero" Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven, reversed the trial court's judgment and directed to vacate
the order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in the
case captioned RICARDO BERMUDEZ VAQUERO et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. STONELEDGE FURNITURE LLC, Defendant and Respondent,
No. B269657 (Cal. Ct. App.).

Stoneledge Furniture, LLC, is a retail furniture company doing
business in California as Ashley Furniture HomeStores. From 2009
through March 29, 2014, Stoneledge compensated sales associates
pursuant to the Sales Associate Commission Compensation Pay
Agreement. After a training period during which new employees
received $12.01 per hour, Stoneledge paid sales associates on a
commission basis. If a sales associate failed to earn minimum pay
of at least $12.01 per hour in commissions in any pay period,
Stoneledge paid the associate a draw against future advanced
commissions. The commission agreement did not provide separate
compensation for any non-selling time, such as time spent in
meetings, on certain types of training, and during rest periods.
Effective March 30, 2014, Stoneledge implemented a new commission
agreement that pays sales associates a base hourly wage of $10 for
all hours worked and sales associates can earn various types of
incentive payments based on a percentage of sales. Under the new
agreement, no portion of a sales associate's base pay is deducted
from or credited against incentive payments.

Ricardo Bermudez Vaquero and Robert Schaefer worked as sales
associates for Stoneledge. After termination of their employment,
Vaquero and Schaefer filed a class action complaint alleging that
Stoneledge's commission pay plan did not comply with California
law. Vaquero and Schaefer filed a putative class action alleging
causes of action for failure to provide paid rest periods under
Labor Code section 226.7 and the applicable wage order, failure to
pay all wages owed upon termination under section 203, unfair
business practices, and declaratory relief.

Stoneledge filed a motion for summary judgment or in the
alternative for adjudication, arguing that the rest period claim
failed as a matter of law because Stoneledge paid its sales
associates a guaranteed minimum for all hours worked, including
rest periods. With respect to the claim for violation of section
203, Stoneledge argued a claim for rest period premium pay is not
an action to recover wages under section 203 and, in any event,
Stoneledge did not willfully fail to pay wages, as required for a
violation of section 203. Stoneledge argued that, because the
class claims for failure to pay for rest periods and for wages
owed at termination failed as a matter of law, the derivative
claim for unfair business practices also failed.

The trial court granted Stoneledge's motion and entered judgment
for Stoneledge and without examining the merits of the remaining
claims, concluded they all failed because they were derivative of
the rest period claim. Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and
directed the trial court to vacate its order granting Stoneledge's
motion for summary judgment and enter a new order denying the
motion for summary judgment and motion for summary adjudication on
the cause of action for violation of section 226.7.

The Court of Appeals pointed out that the trial court erred in
granting summary adjudication on the plaintiffs' cause of action
for violation of section 226.7., since Stoneledge did not
separately compensate sales associates for rest periods as
required by California law. The trial court's ruling that the
plaintiffs' other causes of action failed because the section
226.7 claim failed was also erroneous, the Court of Appeals held.

The trial court is directed to rule on the merits of Stoneledge's
motion for summary adjudication on the plaintiffs' other causes of
action.

A copy of the Court of Appeals of California, Second District,
Division Seven's opinion penned by Justice John L. Segal, dated
February 28, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/aqcgci from
Leagle.com.

Michael D. Singer -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Jeff Geraci --
jgeraci@ckslaw.com -- at Cohelan Khoury & Singer; Raphael A. Katri
-- rkatri@SoCalLaborLawyers.com -- at Law Offices of Raphael A.
Katri; Kevin T. Barnes -- Gregg Lander -- at Law Offices of Kevin
T. Barnes, for Plaintiffs and Appellants

J. Kevin Lilly -- klilly@littler.com -- Scott M. Lidman --
slidman@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, for Defendant and
Respondent

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven panel consists of Presiding Justice Dennis M. Perluss and
Justices John L. Segal and Keeny.


SWIFT FINANCIAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Scott" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Scott, an individual on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Swift Financial d/b/a Swift Capital, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00032-PMW (D. Utah, February 28, 2017), seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded
voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the
called party.

Swift Financial operates a direct financial services company which
provides small business banking products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Heather M. Sneddon, Esq.
      John A. Bluth, Esq.
      Nathan P. Hatch, Esq.
      ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
      50 W Broadway Ste 700
      Salt Lake City, UT 84101
      Telephone: (801) 534-1700
      E-mail: hsneddon@aklawfirm.com
              jbluth@aklawfirm.com
              nhatch@aklawfirm.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: May 15 Class Cert. Hearing in "Mckinsty"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RAFAEL MCKINSTY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SWIFT
TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, AND
DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-01317-VAP-SP (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on May 15, 2017 at 2:00
P.M. for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all California based current and former truck drivers
      employed by Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC who
      worked for at least four consecutive hours in California,
      and who were compensated via a piece-rate compensation
      system, at any time during the period from April 16, 2011
      through the conclusion of this action"; and

   2. appointing Rafael McKinstry as representative of the
      Plaintiff class and his counsel of record, Michael Malk,
      Esq., as counsel for the Plaintiff class.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kR1ZyFqe

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Malk, Esq.
          1180 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE, SUITE 302
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 203 0016
          Facsimile: (310) 499 5210
          E-mail: mm@malklawfirm.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: May 15 Class Cert. Hearing in "Mares" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SADASHIV MARES, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SWIFT
TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZON, LLC, a business entity, form
unknown; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:15-cv-07920-VAP-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on May 15, 2017, at 2:00 pm for an order:

   1. certifying Plaintiff's claims for an additional hour of pay
      as a class action on behalf of a class of:

      "all California residents who (a) were employed by
       Defendants as truck drivers at any time on or after 27,
      2011 and (b) were paid on a piece rate basis."

   2. certifying Plaintiff Sasashiv Mares as the representative
      of the class; and

   3. appointing Joseph Clapp, Esq. Aiman-Smith & Marcy, as class
      counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H27E4tQS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Clapp, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
          7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1150
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 590 7115
          Facsimile: (510) 562 6830
          E-mail: jc@asmlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John D. Ellis, Esq.
          Babak G. Yousefzadeh, Esq.
          Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
          Patricia M. Jeng, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Fl.
          San Francsico, CA 94111


TGI FRIDAYS: "Calabrese" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ADAM CALABRESE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. TGI
FRIDAYS INC., et al., the Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-00868-JCJ
(E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order:

   1. granting conditional collective certification pursuant to
      the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. authorizing issuance of Notice to all members of the
      putative Collective Class in accordance with Hoffman-La
      Roche v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989); and

   3. directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff of all
      names and addresses of members of the collective class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dp5QedMm

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Robert J. Gray, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 822-3700
          Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
          E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
                  rgray@cwglaw.com

               - and -

          Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq.
          Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364 5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364 5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
                  dbraynin@kalraylaw.com


TOTAL WEALTH: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Calderon" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Albert Calderon, Susan Antonucci, Chistopher Bryant,
Jolie Cartier, Donald Clugston, James Matthew Console, Choyunn
Cornell, Amy Durschlag, Michael Durschlag, Inga Gleason, Laurence
Gleason, David Green, Anthony N. Leonard, Kimberly A. McKinney,
Kathleen Mellor, Richard Mellor, John Paterick, George Rasor, Alon
Saado, Michael Sitto, Gloria Templin, David Kip Willett, Stephen
Wood, Jack Wynne, Tuula Wynne, Donn Yover and Jodel Yover filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Albert
Calderon, et al. v. Total Wealth Management, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-01632-BAS-NLS.

The appellate case is captioned as Albert Calderon, et al. v.
Andesite Finance Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-55217, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was commenced in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Diego (Case No. 37-02014-00015682), and was
removed to the District Court.

The Plaintiffs allege that they were "investment advisory clients"
of Defendant Total Wealth Management and were caused to invest
funds to be placed in various investments and assets created or
maintained by various defendants other than Defendant First Trust
Company of Onaga ("FTCO") based on misrepresentations regarding
various non-FTCO-defendants' expertise, the assets and
investments, and how Plaintiffs' funds were being managed.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the class consists of "all TWM's investment
advisory clients whose funds were placed in or passed through TWM,
ACOF or the series of unregistered fund of funds referred to as
the 'Altus Portfolio Series' who suffered damages."

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

   -- Opening brief of Appellants Albert Calderon, Susan
      Antonucci, Chistopher Bryant, Jolie Cartier, Donald
      Clugston, James Matthew Console, Choyunn Cornell, Amy
      Durschlag, Michael Durschlag, Inga Gleason, Laurence
      Gleason, David Green, Anthony N. Leonard, Kimberly A.
      McKinney, Kathleen Mellor, Richard Mellor, John Paterick,
      George Rasor, Alon Saado, Michael Sitto, Gloria Templin,
      David Kip Willett, Stephen Wood, Jack Wynne, Tuula Wynne,
      Donn Yover and Jodel Yover is due on May 30, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Andesite Finance Company, LLC,
      Andesite Mortgage Pool, LLC, Mark Dionne, LJL Funding, LLC,
      LJL Secured High Yield Income Fund, LLC, Susan Lakosil and
      SoCal Accounting, Inc. is due on June 27, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants Albert Calderon, Susan Antonucci, Chistopher
Bryant, Jolie Cartier, Donald Clugston, James Matthew Console,
Choyunn Cornell, Amy Durschlag, Michael Durschlag, Inga Gleason,
Laurence Gleason, David Green, Anthony N. Leonard, Kimberly A.
McKinney, Kathleen Mellor, Richard Mellor, John Paterick, George
Rasor, Alon Saado, Michael Sitto, Gloria Templin, David Kip
Willett, Stephen Wood, Jack Wynne, Tuula Wynne, Donn Yover and
Jodel Yover are represented by:

          Paul Michael Jonna, Esq.
          Charles S. LiMandri, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES S. LIMANDRI, APC
          P.O. Box 9120
          Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
          Telephone: (858) 759-9930
          Facsimile: (858) 759-9938
          E-mail: pjonna@limandri.com
                  cslimandri@limandri.com

               - and -

          Michael Aguirre, Esq.
          Maria C. Severson, Esq.
          AGUIRRE, MORRIS & SEVERSON LLP
          501 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 876-5364
          Facsimile: (619) 876-5368
          E-mail: maguirre@amslawyers.com
                  mseverson@amslawyers.com

Defendants-Appellees ANDESITE FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, a California
limited liability company; ANDESITE MORTGAGE POOL, LLC, a limited
liability company; LJL FUNDING, LLC, a limited liability company;
LJL SECURED HIGH YIELD INCOME FUND, LLC, a limited liability
company; and SUSAN LAKOSIL are represented by:

          Christina Lenore Geraci, Esq.
          GERACI LAW FIRM
          2302 Martin
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 379-2600
          Facsimile: (949) 379-2610
          E-mail: Christina@geracilawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees MARK DIONNE, an accountant, and SOCAL
ACCOUNTING, INC., a California corporation, are represented by:

          Samuel Strohbehn, Esq.
          Jamie M. Ritterbeck, Esq.
          KLINEDINST P.C.
          501 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101-3584
          Telephone: (619) 239-8131
          Facsimile: (619) 238-8707
          E-mail: sstrohbehn@klinedinstlaw.com
                  jritterbeck@klinedinstlaw.com


TOWN SPORTS: Has Paid Settlement Amount to Resolve "Labbe" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc., disclosed in its Form
10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February
22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it
paid in the fourth quarter of 2016 the settlement amount in
connection with its agreement resolving the class action lawsuit
commenced by James Labbe.

On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et
al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff, commenced a
purported class action in New York State court on behalf of
personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe was seeking
unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of
various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to
payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping
obligations. The Company completed settlement negotiations,
pursuant to which TSI, LLC will pay its trainers the aggregate sum
of $165,000 in exchange for full releases.

The settlement agreement has been executed by the parties, has
been approved by the court and the class, and the Company paid the
settlement amount in the fourth quarter of 2016.

Based on the number of clubs, Town Sports International Holdings,
Inc., is one of the leading owners and operators of fitness clubs
in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States and
one of the largest fitness club owners and operators in the U.S.
As of December 31, 2016, the Company, through its subsidiaries,
operated 150 fitness clubs.  The Company's clubs collectively
served approximately 544,000 members as of Dec. 31.  The Company
owned and operated a total of 102 clubs under the "New York Sports
Clubs" brand name within a 120-mile radius of New York City as of
December 31, including 35 locations in Manhattan where the Company
is the largest fitness club owner and operator.


TWILIO INC: Discovery in "Flowers" Suit to Continue Until August
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the lawsuit initiated by Angela Flowers has already
begun, and will continue until August 2017, Twilio Inc. said in
its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

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

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

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

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

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Singh" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jaswinder Singh filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Jaswinder Singh v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case
No. 3-16-cv-03044, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was initiated in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County
(Case no. MON-L-16-01464), and was later removed to the District
Court.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

Uber Technologies provides e-commerce services for car hire.  The
Company offers a Web site that allows users to request a car for
hire from any mobile device text message.

The appellate case is captioned as Jaswinder Singh v. Uber
Technologies Inc., Case No. 17-1397, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant JASWINDER SINGH, on behalf of himself and all
those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel A. Horowitz, Esq.
          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685 7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685 7417
          E-mail: dhorowitz@swartz-legal.com
                  mmiller@swartz-legal.com

Defendant-Appellee UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. is represented by:

          Paul Calvin Lantis, Esq.
          William J. Simmons, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Three Parkway, Suite 1400
          1601 Cherry Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402 3073
          Facsimile: (267) 276 7776
          E-mail: plantis@littler.com
                  wsimmons@littler.com


UBS COMMERCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock's California Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit filed by the Blackrock
plaintiffs in California, UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C1
said in its Form 10-D filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 22, 2017, for the monthly distribution
period from January 13, 2017, to February 10, 2017, that ...

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company ("DBNTC") have been sued by investors in
civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain
residential mortgage-backed security trusts.

On March 25, 2016, Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P.,
and others (the "Blackrock plaintiffs") filed a state court action
against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange County
with respect to 513 trusts.  On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC
as an additional defendant.  The amended complaint asserts three
causes of action:  breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty;
and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.  Plaintiffs
purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other
current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts.  The amended
complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total
realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not
include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.  On August
22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to plaintiffs'
breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of the duty to
avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion to strike
as to plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action.

On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA's demurrer,
providing plaintiffs with thirty days' leave to amend, and denied
DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to strike.  Plaintiffs did not further
amend their complaint and, on December 19, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA
filed an answer to the amended complaint.  Discovery is ongoing.


UBS COMMERCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock's New York Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit filed by the Blackrock
plaintiffs in New York, according to UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust
2012-C1's February 22, 2017, Form 10-D filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution
period from January 13, 2017, to February 10, 2017.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company ("DBNTC") have been sued by investors in
civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain
residential mortgage-backed security trusts.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by
Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a
derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State
Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544
private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations
of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 ("TIA"), breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC
and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees
for the trusts.  Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state
court complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts,
which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the
state court action.  The complaint alleges that the trusts at
issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4
billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money
damages in a sum certain.  DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to
dismiss, and on January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the
motion on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are
governed by pooling and servicing agreements, the court declined
to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive
defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss.

On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
federal court.  In the amended complaint in connection with 62
trusts governed by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims
for breach of contract, violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary
duty, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest.  The
amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered
total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8 billion, but the
complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum
certain. On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  On January 23, 2017, the court
granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to
dismiss.  The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to
plaintiffs' conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and
denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim (except as noted below) and claim for violation of
the TIA, thereby allowing those claims to proceed.

On January 26, 2017 the parties filed a joint stipulation and
proposed order dismissing plaintiffs' claim for breach of
fiduciary duty.  On January 27, 2017, the court entered the
parties' joint stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs' claim for
breach of fiduciary duty be dismissed.

On February 3, 2017, following a hearing concerning DBNTC and
DBTCA's motion to dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a
short form order dismissing (i) plaintiffs' representation and
warranty claims as to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors
had entered bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims
against such originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and
(ii) plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were premised upon any
alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers. The
court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint only as to
the first point above.  Plaintiffs must inform the court by
February 16, 2017 whether they plan to amend.  Discovery is
ongoing.


UNDER ARMOUR: "Stenger" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
BEN STENGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC. (Serve On:
The Corporation Trust Incorporated, 351 West Camden Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201), KEVIN A. PLANK (c/o Under Armour,
Inc., 1020 Hull Street, 3rd Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21230) AND
LAWRENCE P. MOLLOY (c/o Under Armour, Inc., 1020 Hull Street, 3rd
Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21230), Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00611-GLR (D. Md., March 2, 2017), alleges that Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies in violation of the
U.S. Securities Act. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose
that one of its largest wholesale retailers, The Sports Authority,
was facing bankruptcy and, as a result of its high inventory
levels at The Sports Authority, Under Armour was at risk of not
meeting its revenue and profit margins.

Under Armour, Inc. develops, markets and distributes branded
performance apparel, footwear and accessories for men, women and
youth.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 524-4290
     Fax: (202) 333-2121
     Email: nporritt@zlk.com

        - and -

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Phone: (203) 992-4523
     Fax: (212) 363-7171
     Email: shopkins@zlk.com


UNITED STATES: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Combat-Related Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon A. Soto, on behalf of himself and all other individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The United States of America,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00051 (S.D. Tex., March 2, 2017),
alleges that Plaintiff and the putative class -- former members of
the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard who
were awarded Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) due to
their combat-related disabilities -- have been denied the full
amount of retroactive CRSC to which they are entitled to due to
Defendant's nationwide and unlawful policy to pay no more than six
years of Retroactive Payment Cap.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tracy LeRoy, Esq.
     SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
     1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 6000
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: 713-495-4510
     Fax: 713-495-7799

        - and -

     Barton F. Stichman, Esq.
     Thomas A. Moore, Esq.
     NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM
     1600 K Street NW, Suite 500
     Washington, DC 20006-2833
     Phone: 202-621-5687

        - and -

     Gerard D. Kelly, Esq.
     Emily M. Wexler, Esq.
     Jeff Carroll, Esq.
     SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
     One South Dearborn Street
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312-853-7000


UNITED STATES: Hawaii Files Amended Trump Travel Bank Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Sinco Kelleher and Caleb Jones, writing for The
Associated Press, report that Hawaii has filed an amended federal
lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's revised travel ban.

The amended suit was filed on March 7, a day after Trump signed an
executive order for the revised ban that will restrict travel by
people from six Muslim-majority countries.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson on March 8 granted the state's
request to continue with the case and set a hearing for March 15 -
- the day before Trump's revised ban is due to go into effect.

The judge will also hear arguments from the state on a motion to
impose a temporary restraining order that would prevent the ban
from taking place until the lawsuit has been resolved.

The lawsuit says the revised travel ban will harm the Muslim
population of Hawaii as well as schools and employers.

The state's previous suit had been on hold while a nationwide
injunction on the initial ban remained in place.

Requests for comment from Justice Department lawyers were not
immediately returned.

The president's new order bars new visas for people from the six
countries and temporarily shuts down America's refugee program,
affecting would-be visitors and immigrants from Iran, Syria,
Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Libya.

Hawaii's complaint says it is suing to protect its residents,
businesses and schools, as well as its "sovereignty against
illegal actions of President Donald J. Trump and the federal
government."

Imam Ismail Elshikh of the Muslim Association of Hawaii became a
plaintiff in the state's initial lawsuit. His mother-in-law is a
Syrian national living in that country.

Trump's "executive order inflicts a grave injury on Muslims in
Hawaii, including Dr. Elshikh, his family, and members of his
mosque," the lawsuit states.

Hawaii has hired a Washington, D.C., law firm to help with the
lawsuit.  Josh Wisch, a spokesman for the state attorney general's
office, has said the firm is giving the state a 50 percent
discount on its services.

"This new executive order is nothing more than Muslim Ban 2.0,"
Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin said in a statement on
March 6.  "Under the pretense of national security, it still
targets immigrants and refugees."


VILLE PLATTE: Loses Exception of Prescription Arguments
-------------------------------------------------------
In the appeals case captioned, GLORIA VALLARE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. VILLE PLATTE MEDICAL
CENTER, LLC, AND LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE AND INDEMNITY CO, d/b/a
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA, Case No. 16-863, Consolidated
with No. 16-953 (La. App.), the Louisiana Court of Appeals denied
Ville Platte Medical Center, LLC, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Louisiana's applications for supervisory writs.

Gloria Vallare, insured through Louisiana Health Service and
Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana
(Blue Cross), was involved in a car accident and received
treatment for injuries received therein at Acadian Medical Center
in Eunice, Louisiana. The bill for her treatment was $3,424.00.
Instead of billing her insurance carrier, Ville Platte Medical
Center, LLC (VPMC) sent a notice of lien to Farm Bureau Insurance,
the insurer of the other party involved in the car accident.
Pursuant to the lien, Farm Bureau issued a check made payable to
Vallare and the hospital.

Vallare, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed suit against VPMC for violations of  Louisiana
Laws Revised Statutes 22:1874. Blue Cross was also made a
defendant, and the claims against it were based on allegations
that it did not enforce its provider agreement with VPMC. Vallare
took the position that the hospital was in violation of its
agreement with Blue Cross by demanding an amount in excess of the
contracted reimbursement rate set forth in the provider agreement.

The Court certified a class of "All persons from January 1, 2004,
to June 18, 2013, who received covered health care services as
defined by La. R.S. 22:1874(8) provided by Eunice Community
Medical Center/Acadian Medical Center and all persons since April
1, 2010, who received covered health care services as defined by
La.R.S. 22:1874(8) from VILLE PLATTE MEDICAL CENTER and its
predecessors VPMC; and at the time of the covered health care
services had Health Insurance Coverage as defined by La. R.S.
22:1874(18); and (b) from whom VPMC attempted to recover any
amount in excess of the contracted reimbursement rate as defined
by La. R.S. 22:1874(7) and/or who paid VPMC in any manner
including but not limited to liability insurance proceeds and/or
from proceeds of a settlement or judgment, an amount in excess of
the contracted reimbursement rate either directly and/or through
their attorney and/or through a liability insurance carrier and/or
any third party."

This class is composed of  the subclasses of "(a) Recover
subclass: A subclass of persons who received covered health care
services, and who had health insurance coverage, and from whom
VPMC attempted to recover any amount in excess of the contracted
reimbursement rate from January 1, 2004, through June 18, 2013;
and (b) Payor subclass: A subclass of persons who received covered
health care services, and who had health insurance coverage,
and/or who paid VPMC in any manner including but not limited to
liability insurance proceeds and/or from proceeds of a settlement
or judgment, an amount in excess of the contracted reimbursement
rate either directly and/or through their attorney and/or through
a liability insurance carrier and/or any third party, from January
1, 2004, through June 18, 2013."

VPMC appealed the class certification. The trial court's ruling
certifying the class was affirmed on appeal, but the class
definition was amended to delete the subclasses.

On remand, BCBS filed an exception of prescription while VPMC
filed an exception of prescription and a motion for summary
judgment. Both exceptions of prescription were overruled, and the
motion for summary judgment was denied following a hearing on
September 22, 2016. A written judgment was signed on October 5,
2016. BCBS and VPMC are now before the court seeking supervisory
review of the trial court's rulings.

In an Order dated February 22, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/sxbyaY from Leagle.com, the Louisiana Court of
Appeals found that the trial court did not err in denying VPMC's
exception of prescription because the proper prescriptive period
is ten years and that the claims have not prescribed and that the
trial court did not err in denying VPMC's motion for summary
judgment because it is not possible to determine whether VPMC
attempted to circumvent the Balance Billing Act by alleging that
the medical lien statute authorized it to collect more than the
contracted rate from Farm Bureau Insurance.

As to BCBS, the Court found that the trial court did not err in
denying BCBS's exception of prescription because Vallare's claims
and those of the class are contractual in nature and subject to a
ten-year prescriptive period.

Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Co., d/b/a Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Louisiana is represented by Charles A. O'Brien,
III, Esq. -- COBrien@gfmlaw.com -- GORDON, FOURNARIS & MAMMARELLA,
PA

Ville Platte Medical Center, LLC is represented by Kurt S.
Blankenship, Esq. -- kblankenship@bluewilliams.com -- Robert I.
Baudouin, Esq. -- rbaudouin@bluewilliams.com -- and -- Amanda B.
Bensabat, Esq. -- abensabat@bluewilliams.com -- BLUE WILLIAMS,
L.L.P.

Gloria Vallare is represented by J. Clemille Simon, Esq. --
jsimon@simonlawpc.com -- SIMON LAW OFFICES

             -- and --

       Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
       Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
       Jason Z. Landry, Esq.
       MARTZELL & BICKFORD
       338 Lafayette St.
       New Orleans, LA 70130
       Tel:(504) 581-9065

             -- and --

       J. Lee Hoffoss, Jr., Esq.
       Claude P. Devall, Esq.
       Donald W. McKnight, Esq.
       HOFFOSS DEVALL, LLC
       517 W College St,
       Lake Charles, LA 70605
       Tel: (337)433-2053


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Pleads Guilty in Emissions-Cheating Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Volkswagen pleaded guilty on
March 10 to three criminal counts for a scheme to get around U.S.
pollution rules.  If a federal judge agrees to the Justice
Department's sentencing recommendation, the scandal will end up
costing the company more than $20 billion in the U.S. alone, not
counting lost sales and brand value.

With the March 10 plea, VW has resolved a number of big issues in
an effort to clean up the corporate mess.  That includes a plan to
compensate car owners and either buy back or fix their cars, as
well as a settlement with dealers.  But some hurdles still remain
before the German automaker can say the scandal is behind it.

Criminal settlement

The German automaker has agreed to pay $2.8 billion in criminal
penalties and another $1.5 billion in civil fines for a total of
$4.3 billion. U.S. District Judge Sean Cox will sentence the
company on April 21.

$15 billion settlement, 2-liter DIESELs

VW previously agreed to spend up to $10 billion compensating
owners of roughly 475,000 Volkswagens and Audi vehicles with 2-
liter diesel engines -- the bulk of the vehicles caught in the
emissions-cheating scandal.  VW will buy back cars or fix them. In
either case, VW will pay owners $5,100 to $10,000 for their
trouble, depending on the age of the car and whether it was in the
owner's possession on or before Sept. 18, 2015. VW also will buy
out a lease if done through Volkswagen Credit. Owners have until
Sept. 1, 2018, to seek a buyback, but many have already applied.

VW has agreed to pay attorney fees and costs, including up to $324
million in fees and $8.5 million in out-of-pocket costs.

The settlement also includes $2.9 billion for environmental
mitigation and an additional $2 billion to promote zero-emissions
vehicles.

$1.2 BILLION Settlement, 3-liter DIESELs

VW has agreed to pay at least $1.2 billion to compensate the
owners of roughly 78,000 Volkswagens with 3-liter engines. The
amount could rise to $4 billion under certain circumstances.

$1.2 BILLION SETTLEMENT, DEALERS

VW also has agreed to pay dealers $1.2 billion to compensate them
for damage caused by the cheating scandal.

What's left?

Judge Cox will consider a presentence report before deciding to
agree to the $4.3 billion criminal penalty. At least 300 U.S.
owners didn't accept the civil settlement, so their lawsuits will
proceed toward trial.

The company also faces lawsuits from several states.

Seven VW employees, including five now in Germany, face criminal
charges in the case, and the U.S. investigation is continuing. Two
employees were arrested in the U.S. A law firm has finished an
internal investigation for VW, and the company faces an investor
lawsuit.

Volkswagen also faces legal issues in Germany. Prosecutors in
Braunschweig are conducting a probe into possible criminal
misconduct.  Meanwhile investors are seeking 8.2 billion euros
($8.8 billion), arguing that the company did not disclose in a
timely way that it was facing potentially costly action from the
U.S. regulators.  Volkswagen says the investor suit is without
merit. Consumer lawsuits have been filed in Munich seeking
compensation.


WAH MING: Faces "Luna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Hernandez Luna, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Wah Ming, Inc. d/b/a Ming Wok, Chi Yam Tong,
Danny Tong, and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:17-cv-01150 (E.D.N.Y., March
1, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Chinese restaurant located at
5346 Trail Lake Dr, Fort Worth, TX 76133.

Roberto Hernandez Luna is a pro se plaintiff.


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Perez" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM PEREZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00424-JM-WVG (S.D. Cal., March 1, 2017), seeks
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the alleged illegal actions of
defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in negligently and/or willfully
or knowingly contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. provides personal, small business, and
commercial banking services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (800) 400-6808
     Fax: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
             jason@kazlg.com

        - and -

     Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
     409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 222-7429
     Fax: (866) 431-3292
     E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


WELLS FARGO: "Volcy" Lawsuit Seeks Injunction of Foreclosures
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edna Volcy, Fritz G. Fequiere, each Plaintiff individually and on
behalf of all New York residents similarly situated, Plaintiff vs.
Frenkel Lambert Weiss Weisman & Gordon LLP, Wells Fargo Bank,
Defendant, (N.Y. Sup., County of Nassau, March 1, 2017), seeks,
inter alia, the injunction of foreclosure and Power of Sale
proceedings, for themselves and eviction proceedings, for
themselves and other similarly situated, based upon Defendant's
alleged routine of failing to comply with statutory prerequisites
to foreclosure under New York law.

WELLS FARGO is a federally chartered bank.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Damon Marcus, Esq.
     c/o 586 Macon Place
     Uniondale, NY (11553)
     Phone: (321)-287-1824


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Shadid" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Clarice M. Shadid and Lawrence D., Shadid, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01079 (N.D. Cal., March 1,
2017), was brought for damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the alleged
illegal actions of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, in negligently and
knowingly contacting Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' cellular telephones
to collect debts, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. provides personal, small business, and
commercial banking services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Ave.
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (800) 400-6808
     Fax: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

        - and -

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


WESTAR ENERGY: Merger-Related Suits Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Westar Energy, Inc., continues to defend against a class action
lawsuit and derivative lawsuit related to the company's merger
with Great Plains Energy, Westar said in its Form 10-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On May 29, 2016, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with Great Plains Energy Incorporated, providing for the
merger of a wholly-owned subsidiary of Great Plains Energy with
and into Westar Energy, with Westar Energy surviving as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Great Plains Energy. At the closing of the
merger, the Company's shareholders will receive cash and shares of
Great Plains Energy.

Following the announcement of the merger agreement, two putative
class action complaints (which were consolidated and superseded by
a consolidated complaint) and one putative derivative complaint
challenging the merger were filed in the District Court of Shawnee
County, Kansas.

The consolidated putative class action complaint, filed on July
25, 2016, is captioned In re Westar Energy, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation, Case No. 2016-CV-000457. This complaint names as
defendants Westar Energy, the members of the Company's board of
directors and Great Plains Energy. The complaint asserts that the
members of the Company's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with
the proposed merger. It also asserts that Westar Energy and Great
Plains Energy aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) the merger
consideration deprives the Company's shareholders of fair
consideration for their shares, (ii) the merger agreement contains
deal protection provisions that unfairly favor Great Plains Energy
and discourage third parties from submitting potentially superior
proposals, (iii) the disclosures are misleading and/or omit
material information necessary for the Company's shareholders to
make an informed decision whether to vote in favor of the proposed
transaction and (iv) if the proposed transaction is consummated,
certain of the Company's directors and officers stand to receive
significant benefits. The complaint seeks, among other remedies,
(i) injunctive relief enjoining the merger, (ii) rescission of the
merger agreement or rescissory damages, (iii) a directive to
members of the Company's board of directors to account for all
damages caused by them as a result of their breaches of their
fiduciary duties and (iv) an award for costs and disbursements,
including attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

The putative derivative complaint, filed on July 5, 2016, and as
amended on August 25, 2016, is captioned Braunstein v. Chandler et
al., Case No. 2016-CV-000502. This putative derivative action
names as defendants the members of the Company's board of
directors, Great Plains Energy and a subsidiary of Great Plains
Energy, with Westar Energy named as a nominal defendant. The
complaint asserts that the members of the Company's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders in connection with the proposed merger. It also
asserts that Great Plains Energy and a subsidiary of Great Plains
Energy aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.

The derivative complaint alleges, among other things, that the
members of the Company's board of directors failed to obtain the
best possible price for the Company's shareholders because of a
flawed process that discouraged third parties from submitting
potentially superior proposals, and that the disclosures are false
or misleading due to the omission of certain information. The
complaint seeks, among other remedies, (i) a direction that the
director defendants exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction which is in the best interests of the Company and its
shareholders, (ii) a declaration that the proposed transaction was
entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants
and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable, (iii) rescission of
the merger agreement, (iv) the imposition of a constructive trust
in favor of the plaintiff, on behalf of the Company, upon any
benefits improperly received by the named defendants as a result
of their wrongful conduct, (v) award for costs, including
attorneys' fees and experts' fees, and (vi) the imposition of an
injunction against the defendants and others from consummating the
merger on the terms proposed.

On September 21, 2016, the parties in the consolidated putative
class action and the putative derivative complaint independently
agreed to withdraw requests for injunctive relief and otherwise
agreed in principle to dismissing the actions with prejudice and
to providing releases. In exchange, the parties in the putative
derivative complaint agreed that the Company would make
supplemental disclosures to the shareholders, which disclosures
were made in a Form 8-K filed on September 21, 2016, and the
parties in the consolidated putative class action agreed that the
Company would (i) make the disclosures in the Form 8-K filed on
September 21, 2016, and (ii) grant waivers of the prohibition on
requesting a waiver of the standstill provisions in the
confidentiality and standstill agreements executed by the bidders
that participated in the Company's sale process. These agreements
do not constitute any admission by any of the defendants as to the
merits of any claims. In the future the parties will prepare and
present to the court for approval Stipulations of Settlement that
will, if accepted by the court, settle the actions in their
entirety.

Westar Energy, Inc., is the largest electric utility in Kansas.
The Company provides electric generation, transmission and
distribution services to approximately 704,000 customers in
Kansas.  Westar Energy provides these services in central and
northeastern Kansas, including the cities of Topeka, Lawrence,
Manhattan, Salina and Hutchinson. Kansas Gas and Electric Company,
Westar Energy's wholly-owned subsidiary, provides these services
in south-central and southeastern Kansas, including the city of
Wichita.


WESTERN UNION: Awaits Rulings on Pending Motions in "Pincus" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company awaits rulings in the motions currently
pending in the putative class action lawsuit filed by Caryn Pincus
against Speedpay, Inc., according to the Company's February 22,
2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against Speedpay, Inc. ("Speedpay"), a
subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations
that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card
transactions and that Speedpay engages in money transmission
without a license. The complaint requests certification of a class
and two subclasses generally comprised of consumers in Florida who
made a payment through Speedpay's bill payment services using a
credit card and were charged a surcharge for such payment during
the four-year and five-year periods prior to the filing of the
complaint through the date of class certification. On April 6,
2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April
23, 2015, in response to the motion to dismiss, Pincus filed an
amended complaint that adds claims (1) under the Florida Civil
Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, which authorizes civil
remedies for certain criminal conduct; and (2) for violation of
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO").

On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying
Speedpay's motion to dismiss. On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed
an answer to the amended complaint. On December 1, 2015, Pincus
filed a second amended complaint that revised her factual
allegations, but added no new claims. On December 18, 2015,
Speedpay filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On May
20, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as
to Pincus' Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and
federal RICO claims. On June 7, 2016, Pincus filed an opposition
to Speedpay's motion for judgment on the pleadings. On June 17,
2016, Speedpay filed a reply brief in support of the motion.

On October 28, 2016, Pincus filed a motion seeking class
certification. The motion seeks the certification of a class
consisting of "All (i) persons in Florida (ii) who paid Speedpay,
Inc. a fee for using Speedpay, Inc.'s electronic payment services
(iii) during the five year period prior to the filing of the
complaint in this action through the present." Pincus also filed a
motion to file her motion under seal.

On November 4, 2016, the Court denied Pincus' motion for class
certification without prejudice and motion to seal and ordered her
to file a new motion that redacts proprietary and private
information. Later that day, Pincus filed a redacted version of
the motion. On November 7, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for
summary judgment on Pincus' remaining claims. On December 15,
2016, Speedpay filed an opposition to Pincus' class certification
motion. The same day, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's
summary judgment motion and requested summary judgment on her
individual and class claims. On January 12, 2017, Speedpay filed a
reply in support of its summary judgment motion and Pincus filed a
reply in support of her class certification motion.

As this action is in a preliminary stage, the Company says it is
unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, which could be associated with this action. Speedpay
intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

The Western Union Company is a leader in global money movement and
payment services, providing people and businesses with fast,
reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments
around the world. The Company was incorporated in Delaware as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of First Data Corporation on February 17,
2006, and on September 29, 2006, First Data distributed all of its
money transfer and consumer payments businesses and its interest
in a Western Union money transfer agent, as well as its related
assets, including real estate, through a tax-free distribution to
First Data shareholders (the "Spin-off").


WESTERN UNION: Cannot Estimate Loss in Tennille and Smet Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it is unable to provide
a more precise estimate of the range of possible loss over the
issue of escheatment relating to its settlement of the lawsuits
initiated by James P. Tennille and Robert P. Smet in Colorado.

The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western
Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company,
both of which are pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado. The original complaints asserted claims
for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust
enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on
allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if
their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that
the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the
funds are escheated to state governments. The Tennille complaint
was served on the Company on April 27, 2009. The Smet complaint
was served on the Company on April 6, 2010. On September 21, 2009,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Tennille
complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint. On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an amended
complaint.

The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended complaint and
the Smet complaint. On November 8, 2010, the Court denied the
motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and
conversion claims. On February 4, 2011, the Court dismissed the
plaintiffs' consumer protection claims. On March 11, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds a claim for breach
of fiduciary duty, various elements to its declaratory relief
claim and WUFSI as a defendant. On April 25, 2011, the Company and
WUFSI filed a motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty and
declaratory relief claims. WUFSI also moved to compel arbitration
of the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the action pending
arbitration. On November 21, 2011, the Court denied the motion to
compel arbitration and the stay request. Both companies appealed
the decision. On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to
stay the District Court proceedings pending their appeal.

During the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which the Court preliminarily approved on
January 3, 2013. On June 25, 2013, the Court entered an order
certifying the class and granting final approval to the
settlement. Under the approved settlement, a substantial amount of
the settlement proceeds, as well as all of the class counsel's
fees, administrative fees and other expenses, would be paid from
the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds, which are
included within "Settlement obligations" in the Company's
Consolidated Balance Sheets. These fees and other expenses are
currently estimated to be approximately $50 million. During the
final approval hearing, the Court overruled objections to the
settlement that had been filed by several class members. In July
2013, two of those class members filed notices of appeal. On May
1, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
affirmed the District Court's decision to overrule the objections
filed by the two class members who appealed.

On January 11, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied
petitions for certiorari that were filed by the two class members
who appealed. On February 1, 2016, pursuant to the settlement
agreement and the Court's June 25, 2013 final approval order,
Western Union deposited the class members' unclaimed money
transfer funds into a class settlement fund, from which class
member claims, administrative fees and class counsel's fees, as
well as other expenses will be paid.

On November 6, 2013, the Attorney General of California notified
Western Union of the California Controller's position that Western
Union's deposit of the unclaimed money transfer funds into the
class settlement fund pursuant to the settlement "will not satisfy
Western Union's obligations to report and remit funds" under
California's unclaimed property law, and that "Western Union will
remain liable to the State of California" for the funds that would
have escheated to California in the absence of the settlement. The
State of Pennsylvania and District of Columbia have previously
expressed similar views. Other states have also recently expressed
concerns about the settlement and many have not yet expressed an
opinion.

Since some states and jurisdictions believe that the Company must
escheat its full share of the settlement fund and that the
deductions for class counsel's fees, administrative costs, and
other expenses that are required under the settlement agreement
are not permitted, there is a reasonable possibility a loss could
result up to approximately the amount of those fees and other
expenses. However, given the number of jurisdictions involved and
the fact that no actions have been brought, the Company is unable
to provide a more precise estimate of the range of possible loss.

The Western Union Company is a leader in global money movement and
payment services, providing people and businesses with fast,
reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments
around the world. The Company was incorporated in Delaware as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of First Data Corporation on February 17,
2006, and on September 29, 2006, First Data distributed all of its
money transfer and consumer payments businesses and its interest
in a Western Union money transfer agent, as well as its related
assets, including real estate, through a tax-free distribution to
First Data shareholders (the "Spin-off").


WESTERN UNION: "Herman" Class Suit in California Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company is defending itself and certain officers
against a purported class action lawsuit commenced by Martin
Herman in California, according to the Company's February 22,
2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On January 26, 2017, Martin Herman filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company, its President and
Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former
executive officer of the Company, asserting claims under sections
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission
rule 10b-5 against all defendants and a claim under section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The
complaint alleges that, during the purported class period,
February 24, 2012 through January 19, 2017, defendants made false
or misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse material
facts known to them, including those regarding: (1) the
effectiveness of the Company's fraud prevention program and the
program's compliance with applicable law and best practices; (2)
the development and enhancement of the Company's global compliance
policies and anti-money laundering program; and (3) the Company's
compliance with regulatory requirements.

The Company says this action is in a preliminary stage and the
Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, which could be associated with this action.
The Company and the named individuals intend to vigorously defend
themselves in this matter.

The Western Union Company is a leader in global money movement and
payment services, providing people and businesses with fast,
reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments
around the world. The Company was incorporated in Delaware as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of First Data Corporation on February 17,
2006, and on September 29, 2006, First Data distributed all of its
money transfer and consumer payments businesses and its interest
in a Western Union money transfer agent, as well as its related
assets, including real estate, through a tax-free distribution to
First Data shareholders (the "Spin-off").


WESTERN UNION: Defends "Smallen" Class Suit Pending in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company is defending itself against a purported
class action lawsuit filed by the Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura
Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust in Colorado, the Company said
in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On February 22, 2017, Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne
Smallen Revocable Living Trust filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado. The defendants, class period, claims and bases are the
same as those in the purported class action complaint filed by
Martin Herman.

The Company says this action is in a preliminary stage and the
Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, which could be associated with this action.
The Company and the named individuals intend to vigorously defend
themselves in this matter.

The Western Union Company is a leader in global money movement and
payment services, providing people and businesses with fast,
reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments
around the world. The Company was incorporated in Delaware as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of First Data Corporation on February 17,
2006, and on September 29, 2006, First Data distributed all of its
money transfer and consumer payments businesses and its interest
in a Western Union money transfer agent, as well as its related
assets, including real estate, through a tax-free distribution to
First Data shareholders (the "Spin-off").


WESTERN UNION: Wins Prelim. Approval of "Douglas" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted preliminary
approval to the parties' settlement in the lawsuit initiated by
Jason Douglas.

On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to
class members' wireless telephones without their consent. During
the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier and the
plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million
settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims,
class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the
settlement. The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on
November 10, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement.

The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its
insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any
amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer.
However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to
satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable
to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a
resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the
parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company
believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of
amounts already accrued is remote.

The Western Union Company is a leader in global money movement and
payment services, providing people and businesses with fast,
reliable and convenient ways to send money and make payments
around the world. The Company was incorporated in Delaware as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of First Data Corporation on February 17,
2006, and on September 29, 2006, First Data distributed all of its
money transfer and consumer payments businesses and its interest
in a Western Union money transfer agent, as well as its related
assets, including real estate, through a tax-free distribution to
First Data shareholders (the "Spin-off").


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Oklahoma Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc., awaits ruling on its motion to
dismiss a putative class action lawsuit filed in Oklahoma by a
unitholder of Williams Partners L.P. (WPZ), according to the
Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "On March 7, 2016, a purported unitholder of WPZ
filed a putative class action on behalf of certain purchasers of
WPZ units in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma. The action names as
defendants us, WPZ, Williams Partners GP LLC, Alan S. Armstrong,
and Donald R. Chappel and alleges violations of certain federal
securities laws for failure to disclose Energy Transfer's
intention to pursue a purchase of us conditioned on us not closing
the WPZ Merger Agreement when announcing the WPZ Merger Agreement.
The complaint seeks, among other things, damages and an award of
costs and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on August 31, 2016. On October 17, 2016, we requested
the court dismiss the action."

The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential loss at this time.

The Williams Companies, Inc., was founded in 1908, originally
incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and
reincorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 1987.
Williams' headquarters are located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Williams
is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on
connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays
to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.  The Company's
operations are located principally in the United States.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Delaware Court OKs Shareholder Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery granted the voluntarily dismissal
of the shareholder class action lawsuit relating to the WPZ Merger
Agreement, The Williams Companies, Inc. CCC said in its Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "A purported shareholder filed a separate class
action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on January 15,
2016. The putative class action complaint alleged that the
individual members of our Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to the WPZ
Merger Agreement, which purportedly reduced the merger
consideration to have been received in the subsequently proposed
but now terminated merger with Energy Transfer. The plaintiff
filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss, which the court granted on
January 13, 2017."

"On September 2, 2016, the same purported shareholder filed a
derivative action claiming that the members of our Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties by executing the WPZ
Merger Agreement as a defensive measure against Energy Transfer.
On September 28, 2016, we requested the court dismiss this action
also."

The Williams Companies, Inc., was founded in 1908, originally
incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and
reincorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 1987.
Williams' headquarters are located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Williams
is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on
connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays
to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.  The Company's
operations are located principally in the United States.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Farmland Appeals Unfavorable Final Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Farmland Industries Inc. has appealed a final judgment entered in
The Williams Companies, Inc.'s favor, according to the Company's
February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas
in various states filed an individual and class actions against
us, our former affiliate [WPX Energy, Inc.] and its subsidiaries,
and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price
indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions
were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for
consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. We have agreed to
indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this matter."

"In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc.
(Farmland), the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting
one of our co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to
Farmland's claims. On January 5, 2017, the court extended such
ruling to us, entering final judgment in our favor. Farmland has
appealed."

"Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending
unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the
purported classes and other related matters, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential exposure at this time. However, it
is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these
actions and our related indemnification obligation could result in
a potential loss that may be material to our results of
operations. In connection with this indemnification, we have an
accrued liability balance associated with this matter, and as a
result, have exposure to future developments in this matter."

The Williams Companies, Inc., was founded in 1908, originally
incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and
reincorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 1987.
Williams' headquarters are located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Williams
is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on
connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays
to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.  The Company's
operations are located principally in the United States.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: FHRA Claims Remanded for Further Resolution
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Alaska Supreme Court remanded Flint Hills Resources Alaska,
LLC's claims against The Williams Companies, Inc., for contractual
indemnification and statutory claims for damages related to off-
site sulfolane for further resolution by the trial court,
according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "In 2010, James West filed a class action
lawsuit in state court in Fairbanks, Alaska on behalf of
individual property owners whose water contained sulfolane
contamination allegedly emanating from the Flint Hills Oil
Refinery in North Pole, Alaska. The suit named our subsidiary,
Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources
Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., as
defendants. We owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when we
sold it to FHRA. We and FHRA made claims under the pollution
liability insurance policy issued in connection with the sale of
the North Pole refinery to FHRA. We and FHRA also filed claims
against each other seeking, among other things, contractual
indemnification alleging that the other party caused the sulfolane
contamination."

"In 2011, we and FHRA settled the James West claim. We and FHRA
subsequently filed motions for summary judgment on the other's
claims. On July 8, 2014, the court dismissed all FHRA's claims and
entered judgment for us. On August 6, 2014, FHRA appealed the
court's decision to the Alaska Supreme Court, which heard oral
arguments in October of 2015, and issued a decision on August 26,
2016. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of FHRA's
equitable claims and statutory claims for damages related to
sulfolane located on the refinery property. The Alaska Supreme
Court remanded FHRA's claims against us for contractual
indemnification and statutory claims for damages related to off-
site sulfolane for further resolution by the trial court."

"We currently estimate that our reasonably possible loss exposure
in this matter could range from an insignificant amount up to $32
million, although uncertainties inherent in the litigation
process, expert evaluations, and jury dynamics might cause our
exposure to exceed that amount."

The Williams Companies, Inc., was founded in 1908, originally
incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and
reincorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 1987.
Williams' headquarters are located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Williams
is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on
connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays
to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.  The Company's
operations are located principally in the United States.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: April & August Trials in Geismar Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial dates for additional plaintiffs in the lawsuits arising from
the Geismar incident are scheduled in April 2017 and August 2017,
The Williams Companies, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "On June 13, 2013, an explosion and fire
occurred at our Geismar olefins plant and rendered the facility
temporarily inoperable (Geismar Incident). As a result, there were
two fatalities and numerous individuals (including employees and
contractors) reported injuries. We are addressing the following
contingent liabilities in connection with the Geismar Incident."

"On October 21, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) issued an Inspection Report pursuant to the Clean Air Act's
Risk Management Program following its inspection of the facility
on June 24 through June 28, 2013. The report notes the EPA's
preliminary determinations about the facility's documentation
regarding process safety, process hazard analysis, as well as
operating procedures, employee training, and other matters. On
June 16, 2014, we received a request for information related to
the Geismar Incident from the EPA under Section 114 of the Clean
Air Act to which we responded on August 13, 2014. The EPA could
issue penalties pertaining to final determinations."

"Multiple lawsuits, including class actions for alleged offsite
impacts, property damage, customer claims, and personal injury,
have been filed against us. To date, we have settled certain of
the personal injury claims for an aggregate immaterial amount that
we have recovered from our insurers. The first two trials, for
nine plaintiffs claiming personal injury, were held in Louisiana
state court in Iberville Parish, Louisiana in September and
November 2016. The juries returned adverse verdicts against us,
our subsidiary Williams Olefins, LLC, and other defendants. The
defendants, including us, intend to appeal the verdicts. Trial
dates for additional plaintiffs are scheduled in April 2017 and
August 2017."

"We believe it is probable that additional losses will be incurred
on some lawsuits, while for others we believe it is only
reasonably possible that losses will be incurred. However, due to
ongoing litigation involving defenses to liability, the number of
individual plaintiffs, limited information as to the nature and
extent of all plaintiffs' damages, and the ultimate outcome of all
appeals, we are unable to reliably estimate any such losses at
this time. We believe that it is probable that any ultimate losses
incurred will be covered by our general liability insurance
policy, which has an aggregate limit of $610 million applicable to
this event and retention (deductible) of $2 million per
occurrence."

The Williams Companies, Inc., was founded in 1908, originally
incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and
reincorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 1987.
Williams' headquarters are located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Williams
is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on
connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays
to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.  The Company's
operations are located principally in the United States.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Suit Over Energy Transfer Merger Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated shareholder action arising from The Williams
Companies, Inc.'s terminated merger with Energy Transfer Equity,
L.P., remains stayed, according to the Company's February 22,
2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "Between October 2015 and December 2015,
purported shareholders of us filed six putative class action
lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery that were consolidated
into a single suit on January 13, 2016. This consolidated putative
class action lawsuit relates to our terminated merger with Energy
Transfer Equity, L.P. (Energy Transfer). The complaint asserts
various claims against the individual members of our Board of
Directors, including that they breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to sell us through an allegedly unfair process and for an
allegedly unfair price and by allegedly failing to disclose
allegedly material information about the merger. The complaint
seeks, among other things, an injunction against the merger and an
award of costs and attorneys' fees. On March 22, 2016, the court
granted the parties' proposed order in the consolidated action to
stay the proceedings pending the close of the transaction with
Energy Transfer. The plaintiffs have not filed an amended
complaint."

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

The Williams Companies, Inc., was founded in 1908, originally
incorporated under the laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and
reincorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 1987.
Williams' headquarters are located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Williams
is primarily an energy infrastructure company focused on
connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays
to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.  The Company's
operations are located principally in the United States.


WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Unitholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Partners L.P. awaits ruling on its motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit filed by a purported unitholder in Oklahoma,
according to the Company's February 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "On March 7, 2016, a purported unitholder of us
filed a putative class action on behalf of certain purchasers of
our units in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma. The action names as
defendants, us, Williams, Williams Partners GP LLC, Alan S.
Armstrong, and Donald R. Chappel and alleges violations of certain
federal securities laws for failure to disclose Energy Transfer
Equity, L.P.'s intention to pursue a purchase of Williams
conditioned on Williams not closing the WPZ Public Unit Exchange
when announcing the WPZ Public Unit Exchange. The complaint seeks,
among other things, damages and an award of costs and attorneys'
fees. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 31,
2016."

On October 17, 2016, the Company requested the court dismiss the
action.

The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential loss at this time.

Williams Partners L.P. is a publicly traded Delaware limited
partnership with operations across the natural gas value chain
from gathering, processing, and interstate transportation of
natural gas and natural gas liquids to petchem production of
ethylene, propylene, and other olefins.  Based in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
the Company's operations are located principally in the United
States.


WILLIAMS PARTNERS: More Trials in Geismar Suits in April & Aug.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial dates for additional plaintiffs in the lawsuit arising from
the Geismar Incident are scheduled in April 2017 and August 2017,
Williams Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "On June 13, 2013, an explosion and fire
occurred at our Geismar olefins plant and rendered the facility
temporarily inoperable (Geismar Incident). As a result, there were
two fatalities and numerous individuals (including employees and
contractors) reported injuries. We are addressing the following
contingent liabilities in connection with the Geismar Incident."

"On October 21, 2013, the EPA issued an Inspection Report pursuant
to the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Program following its
inspection of the facility on June 24 through June 28, 2013. The
report notes the EPA's preliminary determinations about the
facility's documentation regarding process safety, process hazard
analysis, as well as operating procedures, employee training, and
other matters. On June 16, 2014, we received a request for
information related to the Geismar Incident from the EPA under
Section 114 of the Clean Air Act to which we responded on August
13, 2014. The EPA could issue penalties pertaining to final
determinations."

"Multiple lawsuits, including class actions for alleged offsite
impacts, property damage, customer claims, and personal injury,
have been filed against us. To date, we have settled certain of
the personal injury claims for an aggregate immaterial amount that
we have recovered from our insurers. The first two trials, for
nine plaintiffs claiming personal injury, were held in Louisiana
state court in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, in September and
November 2016. The juries returned adverse verdicts against
Williams, our subsidiary Williams Olefins, LLC, and other
defendants. The defendants, including us, intend to appeal the
verdicts. Trial dates for additional plaintiffs are scheduled in
April 2017 and August 2017."

"We believe it is probable that additional losses will be incurred
on some lawsuits, while for others we believe it is only
reasonably possible that losses will be incurred. However, due to
ongoing litigation involving defenses to liability, the number of
individual plaintiffs, limited information as to the nature and
extent of all plaintiffs' damages, and the ultimate outcome of all
appeals, we are unable to reliably estimate any such losses at
this time. We believe that it is probable that any ultimate losses
incurred will be covered by our general liability insurance
policy, which has an aggregate limit of $610 million applicable to
this event and retention (deductible) of $2 million per
occurrence."

Williams Partners L.P. is a publicly traded Delaware limited
partnership with operations across the natural gas value chain
from gathering, processing, and interstate transportation of
natural gas and natural gas liquids to petchem production of
ethylene, propylene, and other olefins.  Based in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
the Company's operations are located principally in the United
States.


XTO ENERGY: Hutchison Appeals E.D. Arkansas Ruling to 8th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Dana Hutchison, Harold Brumley, Nelda Brumley, and
Claude D. Wallace filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to
the lawsuits entitled Dana Hutchison, et al. v. XTO Energy, Inc.,
et al., Case Nos. 1:16-cv-00012-BRW and 4:16-cv-00094-BRW, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas -
Batesville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs sued for alleged breach of contract.

XTO Energy Inc. extracts natural gas from shale and produces crude
oil and natural gas.  Cross Timbers Energy operates oil and gas
assets, based in Fort Worth, Texas.

The appellate case is captioned as Dana Hutchison, et al. v. XTO
Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-8011, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Dana Hutchison; Harold Brumley,
Individually and as Trustee of the Brumley Living Trust, dated
December 1, 2011; Nelda Brumley, Individually and as Trustee of
the Brumley Living Trust, dated December 1, 2011; and Claude D.
Wallace, Individually and as Trustee of the Claude D. Wallace
Living Trust dated July 31, 2005, are represented by:

          Keith L. Grayson, Esq.
          Melanie L. Grayson, Esq.
          GRAYSON & GRAYSON PA
          P.O. Box 1447
          Heber Springs, AR 72543
          Telephone: (501) 206-0905
          E-mail: graysonandgrayson@att.net
                  klgmlg@aol.com

               - and -

          Charles R. Hicks, Esq.
          HICKS LAW FIRM
          111 Center Street, Suite 1200
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 371-0068
          E-mail: charleshicks@gmail.com

Respondents-Defendants XTO Energy, Inc., and Cross Timbers Energy
Services, Inc., are represented by:

          Russell Rhea Barton, Esq.
          Michael V. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          Andrew Duncan Sims, Esq.
          HARRIS, FINLEY & BOGLE, P.C.
          777 Main Street, Suite 1800
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 870-8700
          Facsimile: (817) 332-6121
          E-mail: rbarton@hfblaw.com
                  mfitzpatrick@hfblaw.com
                  asims@hfblaw.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Honea, Esq.
          HARDIN, JESSON & TERRY, PLC
          5000 Rogers Avenue
          P.O. Box 10127
          Fort Smith, AR 72917-0127
          Telephone: (479) 452-2200
          Facsimile: (479) 452-9097
          E-mail: honea@hardinlaw.com


XTO ENERGY: Mobley Lumber Appeals E.D. Ark. Order to 8th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mobley Lumber Company Limited Partnership, Elizabeth
Ann Coon, Beth Morgan and Greg Smith filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuits entitled Mobley Lumber Company Limited,
et al. v. XTO Energy, Inc., et al., Case Nos. 1:16-cv-00012-BRW
and 4:16-cv-00094-BRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas - Batesville.

The appellate case is captioned as Mobley Lumber Company Limited,
et al. v. XTO Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-8012, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 15,
2017, the Hon. Billy Roy Wilson denied the Plaintiffs' motions for
class certification.

The Court said, "This case is comprised of Plaintiffs from two
consolidated cases -- Mobley and Hutchinson. Plaintiffs propose
five classes, all of whom assert that XTO defrauded Plaintiffs by
selling gas to a subsidiary (Cross Timbers) at below-market price,
which resulted in Plaintiffs receiving lower royalty payments.
When combined, the proposed classes appear to cover everyone who
received royalty payments from XTO after October 2006. In 2009,
the Honorable G. Thomas Eisele denied certification of a class of
royalty owners who alleged that XTO had underpaid royalties by
deducting certain expenses that were hidden through an improper
relationship between XTO and Cross Timbers."

Petitioners-Defendants Mobley Lumber Company Limited Partnership,
Greg Smith, Elizabeth Ann Coon, and Beth Morgan, Individually and
on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Blair Arnold, Esq.
          BLAIR & ARNOLD
          P. O. Box 2595
          Batesville, AR 72503-2595
          Telephone: (870) 793-3821
          E-mail: mbarnold@swbell.net

               - and -

          William Allen Arnold, Esq.
          MURPHY & THOMPSON
          555 E. Main Street, Suite 200
          Batesville, AR 72503-0000
          Telephone: (501) 793-3821
          E-mail: attorneybillarnold@gmail.com

               - and -

          Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
          Thomas Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201-0000
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com
                  tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Paul Byrd, Esq.
          Joseph D. Gates, Esq.
          PAUL BYRD LAW FIRM
          415 N. McKinley Street, Suite 210
          Little Rock, AR 72205
          Telephone: (501) 420-3050
          Facsimile: (501) 420-3128
          E-mail: paul@paulbyrdlawfirm.com
                  joseph@paulbyrdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stephen C. Gardner, Esq.
          STEPHEN C. GARDNER, P.A.
          Post Office Box 866
          Russellville, AR 72801-0866
          Telephone: (479) 968-5333
          Facsimile: (479) 968-2373
          E-mail: scg@suddenlink.net

               - and -

          C. Lance Gould, Esq.
          Leslie Pescia, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          Post Office Box 4160
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36103
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: lance.gould@beasleyallen.com
                  leslie.pescia@beasleyallen.com

Respondents-Defendants XTO Energy, Inc., and Cross Timbers Energy
Services, Inc., are represented by:

          Russell Rhea Barton, Esq.
          Michael V. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          Andrew Duncan Sims, Esq.
          HARRIS, FINLEY & BOGLE, P.C.
          777 Main Street, Suite 1800
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 870-8700
          Facsimile: (817) 332-6121
          E-mail: rbarton@hfblaw.com
                  mfitzpatrick@hfblaw.com
                  asims@hfblaw.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Honea, Esq.
          HARDIN, JESSON & TERRY, PLC
          5000 Rogers Avenue
          P.O. Box 10127
          Fort Smith, AR 72917-0127
          Telephone: (479) 452-2200
          Facsimile: (479) 452-9097
          E-mail: honea@hardinlaw.com


YELP INC: Faces "Schram" Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SCHRAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, V. YELP INC., AND DOES 1 through
100, Defendant, Case No. BC 652 472 (Cal. Super., County of Los
Angeles, March 2, 2017), results from the illegal actions Of YELP
INC. and its related entities, subsidiaries and agents in
willfully and/or causing to be employed certain recording
equipment in order to record the telephone conversations of
Plaintiff without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff, in
violation of California Penal Code, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

Yelp Inc. operates a social networking, user review, and local
search website.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R: Bacon, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com


YUM BRANDS: Appeals in Taco Bell Wage and Hour Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in the consolidated litigation entitled In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions remain pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, YUM! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company and Taco Bell were named as defendants in a number of
putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010
alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid
overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to
pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of
meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business
expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and
unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200. Some plaintiffs also
sought penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code
under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as well
as statutory "waiting time" penalties and alleged violations of
California's Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought to
represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees.

These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is
styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action, leaving Taco
Bell as the sole defendant. Plaintiffs filed their motion for
class certification on the vacation and final pay claims in
December 2010, and on September 26, 2011, the court issued its
order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay
claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and
rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three
of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to
the late meal break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list
of putative class members, and the class notice and opt out forms
were mailed on January 21, 2014.

Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to
strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the
second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On that same
date, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one
of the PAGA claims. On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion
to amend the operative complaint and a motion to amend the class
certification order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially
granted both motions, rejecting plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal
period class but certifying a limited rest break class and
certifying an underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the
plaintiffs to amend the complaint to reflect those certifications.
On December 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended
complaint. On February 26, 2015, the court denied a motion by Taco
Bell to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class.

Beginning on February 22, 2016, the late meal period class claim,
the limited rest break class claim, the underpaid meal premium
class claim, and the associated statutory "waiting time" penalty
claim was tried to a jury. On March 9, 2016, the jury returned
verdicts in favor of Taco Bell on the late meal period claim, the
limited rest break claim, and the statutory "waiting time" penalty
claim. The jury found for the plaintiffs on the underpaid meal
premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.5 million. A bench
trial was subsequently conducted with respect to the PAGA claims
and plaintiffs' Business & Professions Code Section 17200 claim.
On April 8, 2016, the court returned a verdict in favor of Taco
Bell on the PAGA claims and the Section 17200 claim. In a separate
ruling issued the same day, the court also ruled that plaintiffs
were entitled to prejudgment interest on the underpaid meal
premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.3 million. Taco
Bell denies liability as to the underpaid meal premium class claim
and filed a post-trial motion to overturn the verdict. Plaintiffs'
also filed various post-trial motions.

On July 15, 2016, the court denied Taco Bell's motion to overturn
the verdict. The court denied Plaintiffs' motions: (1) for a new
trial, (2) for judgment as a matter of law to overturn the
verdicts in favor of Taco Bell, (3) challenging the jury
instructions and special verdict forms, and (4) to overturn the
court's rejection of the Section 17200 claims for meal and rest
break violations. The court also denied Plaintiffs' motions for
additional costs and for enhanced awards to two of the named
Plaintiffs. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on
the Section 17200 claim regarding the underpaid meal premium
claim, but rejected awarding any additional damages, finding that
the jury verdict sufficiently compensated the class. The court
granted Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, but awarded only
approximately $1.1 million of the $7.3 million requested. The
court also granted Plaintiffs' bill of costs, but only awarded
approximately $0.1 million of Plaintiffs' $0.2 million.

Thereafter, both Plaintiffs and Taco Bell timely filed notices of
appeal and the matter is now before the Ninth Circuit.

The Company says it has provided for a reasonable estimate of the
possible loss relating to this lawsuit. However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says there can
be no assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in
excess of those currently provided for in its Consolidated
Financial Statements.

YUM! Brands, Inc., was incorporated under the laws of the state of
North Carolina in 1997.  The principal executive offices of YUM
are located in Louisville, Kentucky.  YUM consists of three
operating segments: the KFC Division, which includes the worldwide
operations of the KFC concept; the Pizza Hut Division, which
includes the worldwide operations of the Pizza Hut concept, and
the Taco Bell Division, which includes the worldwide operations of
the Taco Bell concept.


ZICO BEVERAGES: Faces "Barrios" Suit in Cent. Dist. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Zico Beverages,
LLC.  The case is captioned Carlos Barrios, individually, and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Zico
Beverages, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01712-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal., March 1,
2017).

Zico Beverages, LLC is a subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Company that
manufactures coconut water.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee A. Cirsch, Esq.
      Robert K Friedl, Esq.
      Trisha Kathleen Monesi, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1875 Century Park East Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail: lee.cirsch@capstonelawyers.com
              robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com
              trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com


* House Approves Class Action Litigation Reform Bill
----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Daly and Marcy Gordon, writing for The Associated Press,
report that the House has approved a bill that would make it
harder for individuals or groups to bring legal claims against
companies in consumer disputes, employment discrimination cases
and other areas.

Lawmakers approved the Republican-sponsored measure, 220-201, on
March 9.  The bill heads to the Senate, where its prospects are
less clear.

The legislation is the latest in a flurry of business-friendly
moves by Congress and the Trump administration.  Changes mandated
in the bill could help reduce legal costs for businesses by
putting up more hurdles to bringing class-action lawsuits in
federal court.

Supporters say the bill is needed to curb abuses in class-action
suits that often result in a huge payday for lawyers.

"The class-action litigation system has morphed into an expensive
enterprise where lawyers are often the only winners, and American
businesses and consumers are the losers," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte,
R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the bill's
primary author.  "Trial lawyers often profit at the expense of
deserving victims."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing business interests,
also supported the legislation.

Consumer groups and civil rights advocates said the bill penalizes
those who have been mistreated by corporations.

"This devastating Republican attack on our federal and state civil
courts will severely restrict the hallowed right of the American
people to have their day in court when they are wrongfully injured
or defrauded," said veteran consumer advocate Ralph Nader.

The bill would ensure that "judges' and juries' hands are tied by
absentee politicians in Washington, greased by corporate campaign
contributions," Mr. Nader said.

Mr. Nader and other critics point to a history of cases in which
class-action suits enabled consumers to recoup losses and
compelled companies to stop selling unsafe products.  A recent
example: a suit by Volkswagen owners in the U.S. who won about $11
billion in compensation from the German company in its emissions
cheating scandal.

The bill would require individuals seeking to form a legal class
to show that each of them suffered the same type and magnitude of
personal injury or economic loss as the group's leader.  Attorneys
in winning class-action suits couldn't collect payment from
companies until after the individuals in the class are paid.

Republican lawmakers have long cherished the idea of overhauling
the legal system.  They've looked to rein in trial lawyers -- key
campaign donors as a group to Democrats -- whom they portray as
greedy and abusing a system tilted toward them.  Corporations and
businesses, which tend to donate more heavily to Republican
candidates, are championed by the GOP lawmakers as bearing
excessive legal burdens and costs that raise prices for consumers.

"Today, Republicans are championing big corporations with
legislation aimed at eroding class actions, an indispensable tool
for citizens to hold powerful interests and big corporations
accountable for their misdeeds," House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement.



                            *********

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  * * *