CAR_Public/170406.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Thursday, April 6, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 69



                            Headlines

AARON'S INC: Bid to Strike Sherr Report Granted
ABM INDUSTRIES: Air Serv Faces New Suit Over Minimum Wage Issues
ABM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Approval of "Augustus" Suit Settlement
ABM INDUSTRIES: "Bucio" Suit Parties File Supplemental Briefs
ABM INDUSTRIES: Signs Deal to Settle "Karapetyan" Suit for $5MM

ADVANCED MICRO: J. Lackey's Bid to Intervene in "Hatamian" Denied
AMERICAN RENAL: Response to Securities Complaint Due This Month
ANNELLIE'S CAR: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations
APOLLO GLOBAL: Arizona Court to Dismiss Shareholder Suit
APPLE INC: Court Partially Grants Summary Judgment

AR RESOURCES: Loses Bid to Dismiss New Jersey FDCPA Suit
ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES: Sued for Not Maintaining Cemetery
ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Class Suits Consolidated
AUSTRALIA: Queensland Faces Second Class Action Over 2011 Floods
BARRETT BUSINESS: Wins Final OK of $12MM Deal in Securities Suit

BELL: Ontario Court Allows Billing Class Action to Proceed
BLUEMERCURY INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Espinosa"
BOB EVANS: Time to Appeal Final Settlement Approval Has Expired
BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Mediation Underway in Pension Fund's Suit
BROWN AND JOSEPH: "Orea" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Krafczek" Sues Over Unfair Billing Practice
CELADON GROUP: To Appeal Judgment in "Wilmoth" Suit
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Final Settlement Approval Expected in Q3
CIENA CORP: Awaits Decision on Bid to Toss 3rd Amended Complaint
CIENA CORP: Supreme Court Appeal in Securities Suit Underway

CNA FINANCIAL: Class Suit over 401(k) Plus Plan Underway
COLUMBIA BRANDS: "Cardenas" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Defends "Vento" Suit in Delaware
DENTAL SUPPLIES: Comfort Care Seeks Compliance of Subpoena
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Defends Securities Class Suit in Michigan

EASTERN PLUMAS: "Perez" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
ELECTRICITY MAINE: Billing Practices Suit May Become Class Action
ELWYN: "Garcia" Sues Over Missed Meal/Rest Breaks, No Pay Stubs
ENTEROMEDICS INC: Defends "Du" Shareholder Suit in Delaware
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Claims Administration Process Underway

EVERBANK FINANCIAL: MERS-Related Litigation Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Opposed Request for Attorneys' Fee and Costs
EXPEDIA INC: Motion for Summary Judgment in Nassau Suit Underway
EXPEDIA INC: Town of Breckenridge's Appeal Remains Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Appeal in Village of Bedford Park Suit Pending

EXPEDIA INC: Court Trims Claims in Buckeye Tree Lodge Lawsuit
EXPEDIA INC: Cases Against HomeAway.com Pending
EYM KING: "Lockard" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
FIDELITY AND GUARANTY: Appeal in "Ludwick" Class Suit Underway
FORD MOTOR: Settles Fiesta, Focus Transmission Class Action

FORZA SAFETY: "Jones" Hit Retaliation, Seeks Overtime Pay
H&R BLOCK: Appeal From Summary Judgment in "Perras" Suit Pending
H&R BLOCK: Lopez's Motion for Class Certification Remains Pending
HENDERSON KITCHEN: Employees File Wage Class Action
INDEPENDENT BANK: Continues to Defend Stanford-Related Suit

INSPERITY INC: Employee Retirement Plan Class Action Underway
JACKSON NATIONAL: "Pease" Claims Retirement Plan Mismanaged
KISLING NESTICO: Sued for Receiving Chiropractor Kickbacks
LAPOLLA INDUSTRIES: Legal Fees Dispute in "Markey" Suit Underway
LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Robert Sellers Agrees to Drop Class Suit

LOUISIANA: Sued over Solitary Confinement for Death Row Inmates
LUFTHANSA: Judge Trims Claims in Class Action Over Flight Delays
LULAROE: Plaintiffs Attorneys to Push Through Sales Tax Lawsuit
MAJOR LEAGUE: Youth Soccer Club's Suit Dismissed
MASIMO CORP: 11th Cir. Appeal in Product Liability Suit Pending

MASIMO CORP: D.C. Cir. Appeal in Junk Fax Suit Pending
MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Review Dismissal
MEMPHIS, TN: Seeks Sixth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Cole" Suit
MIDLAND FUNDING: Walkabout Appeals W.D. Okla. Ruling to 10th Cir.
NATIONAL COMMERCIAL: Fitz Jackson to Pursue Banking Fees Case

NEW YORK: AAA Elite Hits NYSDOH for Proposed Reimbursement Cuts
NIANTIC: Seeks Dismissal of Landowners' Pokemon Go Class Action
NIKIL INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over "Spam Vite" Texts
NIMBLE STORAGE: Faces Securities Class Action
OVASCIENCE INC: Lifshitz & Miller Files Securities Class Action

PIXARBIO CORP: Securities Suit in Massachusetts Remains Pending
PPL CORP: Dismissed from Cane Run Environmental Claims Suit
REGENCY VILLAGE: "Ridley" Seeks Overtime, Sues Over Missed Breaks
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Retirement Systems Appeal Class Suit Ruling
SABRE CORP: Two Consumer Class Suits Still Pending in Texas

SABRE CORP: Claims Remain Pending in S.D.N.Y. Class Suit
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Stock Inflation Class Action
SANTA FE, NM: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Moya" Class Suit
SMART & FINAL STORES: "Dubon" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SPECTRUM PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Junk Faxes

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: May 2017 Trial in Boeing Indemnification Suit
STRAIGHT PATH: To Settle "Zacharia" Shareholder Suit for $9.45MM
SUNRUN INC: California Court Tosses Shareholder Class Suits
TARGET CORP: Awaits Order on Bid to Toss Consolidated Complaint
TARGET CORP: June 14 Hearing on Bid to Toss Amended ERISA Suit

TEMPUR SEALY: Faces Class Action, May 23 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
TOPGOLF INTL: "Reyes" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Tip Credits
TRONC INC: Accrued Litigation Judgment Liability Up by $2-Mil.
TURTLE BAY: "Markson" Sues Over Unauthorized SMS Ads
TURTLE BEACH: Appeal Remains Pending in Nevada Supreme Court

TYSON FOODS: Bids to Dismiss Broiler Chicken Suits Pending
UNITED STATES: Horvath Appeals Ruling to Federal Circuit
UNITED STATES: Insurers Have Until May 12 to Join Class Action
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Parshall" Suit
UPA LLC: "Land" Sues Over Unattended Building Defects

VALSPAR CORP: To Pay $140K for Fees & Costs in "Mitsopoulos" Suit
WEST COAST TRUCKING: "Lazo" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Consumer Claims Process to Be Completed This Year
WILLBROS GROUP: Suit Over Financial Restatement Still Pending
ZYNGA INC: $10MM Settlement in "Lee" Suit Remains Pending

* 1st Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference on May 1
* Neil Gorsuch May Uphold Class Action Waivers, Attorney Says
* Two Recent Rulings Illustrate Contrasting Spokeo Approaches


                            *********


AARON'S INC: Bid to Strike Sherr Report Granted
-----------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted
Defendant's motion to strike new expert report filed by the
plaintiffs in the case captioned, CRYSTAL BYRD, et al, Plaintiffs,
v. AARON'S, INC., et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 1:11-CV-00101
(W.D. Pa.).

On May 3, 2011, Plaintiffs Crystal and Brian Byrd, initiated the
action. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants utilized spying software
(PCRA software) to illegally intercept, access, monitor, and/or
transmit electronic communications from their consumers' computers
in violation of 18 U.S.C Section 2511, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). Currently, the operative
complaint is Plaintiffs' Corrected Third Amended Complaint.
Defendants remaining in the action are Aaron's Inc. and Aspen Way
Enterprises, Inc.

On July 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
in the action. Defendant Aaron's Inc. filed a brief in opposition,
as well as an expert report from Dr. Aviel Rubin (Rubin Report),
on August 19, 2013. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on
September 23, 2013, along with their own expert report from Dr.
Micah Sherr (Original Sherr Report), who reviewed the Rubin Report
in preparation for his rebuttal report.

The Court issued a Report and Recommendation denying Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification on January 31, 2014, which the
District Court adopted as its opinion on March 31, 2014. On
appeal, the Third Circuit Courts of Appeals reversed and remanded
for further consideration.

On October 14, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Renewed Motion to
Certify Class in the action. The September 2013 Sherr rebuttal
report was included as an exhibit in support of the motion for
class certification.

Defendant Aaron's Inc. filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' New
Expert Report, arguing that the report is improper rebuttal
testimony, it is untimely by more than three years, and Defendants
will be prejudiced if it is allowed to stand. Additionally,
Defendant Aaron's Inc. requests the Court to award Aaron's Inc.
its costs and attorneys' fees in connection with the motion.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated March 22, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/0PPp8E from Leagle.com, Magistrate Baxter found that
the Plaintiffs are attempting to establish a new theory and
methodology in pursuit of its class certification and there is no
reason why the Plaintiffs should be given three years to file a
second rebuttal report, especially when Defendants have continued
to rely on the Rubin Report and have maintained substantially
similar arguments throughout that time.

No additional costs attributed to Plaintiffs.

Brian Byrd and Crystal Byrd are represented by Daniel C. Levin,
Esq. -- dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- Edward C. Konieczny, Esq. --
ed@koniecznylaw.com -- and -- Frederick S. Longer, Esq. --
flonger@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN SEDRAN& BERMAN

            -- and --

      Aaron Z. Ahlquist, Esq.
      Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq.
      Christopher V. Tisi, Esq.
      James F. Green, Esq.
      Maury A. Herman, Esq.
      Michael W. Heaviside, Esq.
      Michelle A. Parfitt, Esq.
      HERMAN GEREL
      230 West Peachtree St NW #2260,
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Tel: (404)880-9500

Aaron's, Inc. is represented by Neal R. Devlin, Esq. --
ndevlin@kmgslaw.com -- and -- Richard A. Lanzillo, Esq. --
rlanzillo@kmgslaw.com -- KNOX, MCLAUGHLIN, GORNALL& SENNETT --
Donald M. Houser, Esq. -- donald.houser@alston.com -- Jason D.
Rosenberg, Esq. -- jason.rosenberg@alston.com -- Kristine
McAlister Brown, Esq. -- kristy.brown@alston.com -- Thomas C.S.
Pryor, Esq. -- spence.pryor@alston.com -- and -- William H.
Jordan, Esq. -- bill.jordan@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP

Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc. is represented by Anthony J. Williott,
Esq. -- ajwilliott@mdwcg.com -- and -- James A. McGovern, Esq. --
jamcgovern@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN
&GOGGIN -- Michele L. Braukmann, Esq. --
Michele.Braukmann@moultonbellingham.com -- MOULTON BELLINGHAM PC -
- Theodore J. Kobus, III, Esq. -- tkobus@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER &
HOSTETLER LLP


ABM INDUSTRIES: Air Serv Faces New Suit Over Minimum Wage Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated's subsidiary is facing a new lawsuit
initiated by employees and alleging failure to comply with minimum
wage requirement, according to the Company's March 8, 2017, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended January 31, 2017.

The lawsuit entitled Hussein and Hirsi v. Air Serv Corporation
filed on January 20, 2016, pending in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle (the
"Hussein case"), is a class action involving a class of certain
hourly Air Serv employees at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
in SeaTac, Washington. The plaintiffs allege that Air Serv
violated a minimum wage requirement in an ordinance applicable to
certain employers in the local city of SeaTac ("the Ordinance").
Plaintiffs seek retroactive wages, double damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees. This matter was removed to federal court. In a
separate lawsuit brought by Filo Foods, LLC, Alaska Airlines, and
several other employers at SeaTac airport, the King County
Superior Court issued a decision that invalidated the Ordinance as
it applied to workers at SeaTac airport. Subsequently, the
Washington Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's decision.
There are disputes in federal court concerning the legality of the
Ordinance, its applicability to employers at SeaTac airport, and
whether the plaintiffs are entitled to retroactive wages, double
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On February 7, 2017, a new lawsuit styled Abdirizak Isse et al. v.
Air Serv Corporation (the "Isse case"), pending in the Superior
Court of Washington for King County, was filed against Air Serv on
behalf of sixty individual plaintiffs (who would otherwise be
members of the Hussein class) who allege failure to comply with
both the minimum wage provision and the sick and safe time
provision of the Ordinance.

If exposed to liability, the Company says it intends to seek
reimbursement from its clients.

ABM Industries Incorporated, which operates through its
subsidiaries, is a leading provider of integrated facility
solutions, customized by industry, that enable its clients to
deliver exceptional facilities experiences.  ABM's comprehensive
services include electrical and lighting, energy solutions,
facilities engineering, HVAC and mechanical, janitorial, landscape
and turf, mission critical solutions, and parking, which the
Company provides through stand-alone or integrated solutions.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Approval of "Augustus" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2017, for the
quarter period ended January 31, 2017, that it is awaiting
approval of its subsidiary's $110 million settlement of the
consolidated cases of Augustus, Hall, and Davis v. American
Commercial Security Services, filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Augustus case").

The Augustus case is a certified class action involving alleged
violations of certain California state laws relating to rest
breaks. The case centers on whether requiring security guards to
remain on call during rest breaks violated Section 226.7 of the
California Labor Code. On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for summary judgment on the rest break claim, and on July
31, 2012, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County
(the "Superior Court"), entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in
the amount of approximately $89.7 million (the "common fund").
Subsequently, the Superior Court also awarded plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees of approximately $4.5 million in addition to
approximately 30% of the common fund. Under California law, post-
judgment interest on a judgment accrues at a rate of 10% simple
interest per year from the date the judgment is entered until it
is satisfied. We appealed the Superior Court's rulings to the
Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate
District (the "Appeals Court"). On December 31, 2014, the Appeals
Court issued its opinion, reversing the judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs and vacating the award of $89.7 million in damages and
the attorneys' fees award. The plaintiffs filed a petition for
review with the California Supreme Court on March 4, 2015, and on
April 29, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the
plaintiffs' petition.

On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court rendered its
decision, holding that on-call and on-duty rest breaks are
prohibited by California law, and reversed the Appeals Court
judgment on this issue. The amount of post-judgment interest as of
December 22, 2016 was approximately $41.2 million.

On February 6, 2017, ABM Security Services, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ABM Industries Incorporated, entered into a Class
Action Settlement and Release Agreement with Plaintiffs Jennifer
Augustus, Emanuel Davis, Delores Hall, and Carlton Anthony Waite,
on behalf of themselves and the settlement class members, to
settle the Augustus case (the "Augustus Settlement Agreement") on
a class-wide basis for $110.0 million. The Augustus Settlement
Agreement is contingent upon the approval of the Superior Court.

ABM Industries Incorporated, which operates through its
subsidiaries, is a leading provider of integrated facility
solutions, customized by industry, that enable its clients to
deliver exceptional facilities experiences.  ABM's comprehensive
services include electrical and lighting, energy solutions,
facilities engineering, HVAC and mechanical, janitorial, landscape
and turf, mission critical solutions, and parking, which the
Company provides through stand-alone or integrated solutions.


ABM INDUSTRIES: "Bucio" Suit Parties File Supplemental Briefs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM
Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Francisco (the "Bucio case"), filed
with the appeals court their respective supplemental letter
briefs, according to ABM Industries Incorporated's March 8, 2017,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2017.

The Company said: "The Bucio case is a purported class action
involving allegations that we failed to track work time and
provide breaks. On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing
on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of
that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify
the class. On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
reconsider, which was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the
class certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying
lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal. On August 30, 2012,
the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on the class
certification issues. We filed our responsive brief on November
15, 2012."

On January 18, 2017, the appeals court invited the parties to file
supplemental letter briefs. ABM and plaintiffs each filed their
respective supplemental letter briefs with the court on February
8, 2017. Oral argument relating to the appeal has not been
scheduled.

ABM Industries Incorporated, which operates through its
subsidiaries, is a leading provider of integrated facility
solutions, customized by industry, that enable its clients to
deliver exceptional facilities experiences.  ABM's comprehensive
services include electrical and lighting, energy solutions,
facilities engineering, HVAC and mechanical, janitorial, landscape
and turf, mission critical solutions, and parking, which the
Company provides through stand-alone or integrated solutions.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Signs Deal to Settle "Karapetyan" Suit for $5MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2017, for the
quarter period ended January 31, 2017, that it entered into a
Settlement Term Sheet to settle on a class-wide basis for $5
million the lawsuit captioned Karapetyan v. ABM Industries
Incorporated and ABM Security Services, Inc., filed on October 23,
2015, pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California (the "Karapetyan case").

The Karapetyan case is a putative class action in which the
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of security guards who worked
during time periods subsequent to the class period in the Augustus
case. The plaintiff alleges that ABM violated certain California
state laws relating to meal and rest breaks and other wage and
hour claims. On January 30, 2017, ABM entered into a Settlement
Term Sheet with plaintiff to settle the case on a class-wide basis
for $5.0 million. This settlement is contingent upon the
finalization of a long-form settlement agreement with respect to
the Karapetyan case as well as the final approval by the United
States District Court for the Central District of California and
the final approval by the Superior Court of the Augustus
Settlement Agreement.

ABM Industries Incorporated, which operates through its
subsidiaries, is a leading provider of integrated facility
solutions, customized by industry, that enable its clients to
deliver exceptional facilities experiences.  ABM's comprehensive
services include electrical and lighting, energy solutions,
facilities engineering, HVAC and mechanical, janitorial, landscape
and turf, mission critical solutions, and parking, which the
Company provides through stand-alone or integrated solutions.


ADVANCED MICRO: J. Lackey's Bid to Intervene in "Hatamian" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied John F. Lackey's
motion to intervene in the case captioned, BABAK HATAMIAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 14-cv-00226 YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Lead plaintiffs Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and KBC Asset
Management NV bring the putative securities fraud class action
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 15, 2014, plaintiffs publicized the pendency of the
securities class action in accordance to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  John F. Lackey received a notice of the
pendency of the action on December 28, 2016.  Lackey was afforded
an opportunity to opt out by January 19, 2017, and he did not. As
such, Lackey is currently a class member.

Lackey now moves pro se to intervene as a party plaintiff under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a) and 24(b). Lackey does not
argue that a federal statute grants him the right to intervene in
this action. Rather, he argues that he meets the four-factor test.

In her Order dated March 22, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/rNjnTB from Leagle.com, Judge Rogers concluded that
Lackey has not demonstrated that the existing parties inadequately
represent his interests and that has not demonstrated that the
disposition of the matter without his participation could impair
or impede his ability to protect the own interests.  As to Rule
24(b), he failed to demonstrate how he meets the legal standard.

BabakHatamian and LussuDennj Salvatore are represented by Joy Ann
Kruse, Esq. -- jkruse@lchb.com -- LIEFFCABRASERHEIMANN& BERNSTEIN,
LLP

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. are represented by Patrick
Edward Gibbs, Esq. -- pgibbs@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP -- Jason C.
Hegt, Esq. -- jason.hegt@lw.com -- Matthew Rawlinson, Esq. --
matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- and -- Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Esq. --
melante.blunschi@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP


AMERICAN RENAL: Response to Securities Complaint Due This Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc.'s response to an amended
complaint in the securities lawsuit pending in Massachusetts is
currently due in April 2017, according to the Company's March 8,
2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On August 31, 2016 and September 2, 2016, putative shareholder
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, respectively,
against the Company and certain officers and directors of the
Company.  Both complaints assert federal securities law claims
against the Company and the individual defendants under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC and in addition, the complaint filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The
complaints allege that the Company made material misstatements or
omissions, including in connection with its initial public
offering filings and other public filings. The complaints seek
unspecified damages on behalf of the individuals or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities from
April 20, 2016 to August 18, 2016.

On October 26, 2016, the complaint filed in the Southern District
of New York was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff without
prejudice.

On November 30, 2016, Lead Plaintiff was appointed for the
putative shareholder class action complaint pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned
Esposito, et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings Inc., et
al., No. 16-cv-11797 (the "Esposito Action").

On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff in the Esposito Action filed
an amended complaint against the Company, certain former and
current officers and directors of the Company, and certain of the
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering. The amended
complaint asserts federal securities laws claims under Securities
Act sections 11 and 15, as well as Exchange Act sections 10(b),
20(a), and Rule 10b-5. The Company's response is currently due in
April 2017.

In addition, the Company received a demand letter, dated January
27, 2017, from a purported shareholder relating to the subject
matter covered by the United complaint and the class action
complaints described, which could lead to the initiation of a
shareholder derivative lawsuit against the Company and its board
of directors.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
these claims.

American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc., is the largest dialysis
services provider in the United States focused exclusively on
joint venture ("JV") partnerships with physicians.  As of December
31, 2016, the Company owned and operated 214 dialysis clinics in
partnership with 379 nephrologist partners treating over 14,000
patients in 25 states and the District of Columbia.


ANNELLIE'S CAR: Faces Class Action Over Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Florida Record, reports that a
Broward County man alleges he was not paid a minimum wage while
working at a car wash.

Brandon Williams filed a complaint on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated individuals on March 21 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale
Division against Annellie's Car Wash LLC and Rene L. Moreno citing
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff worked for the
defendants from March 2015 to December 2016. He alleges he worked
more than 40 hours per week, and for a period of time worked for
70 hours each week.

The plaintiffs hold Annellie's Car Wash LLC and Moreno responsible
because the defendants allegedly misclassified plaintiff in direct
violation of the labor code, failed to compensate plaintiff for
all hours worked, failed to provide mandatory rest and meal break
periods, and failed to provide plaintiffs with compliant and
accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to pay overtime.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendants, actual damages, double damages, attorneys' fees, costs
of suit, and any further relief as the court deems just.  He is
represented by Zandro E. Palma of Zandro E. Palma PA in Miami.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort
Lauderdale Division Case number 0:17-cv-60577


APOLLO GLOBAL: Arizona Court to Dismiss Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
An Arizona court has indicated it will dismiss the case captioned,
In re Apollo Education Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, unless
the parties submitted a final judgment or stipulated dismissal,
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Between February 25 and March 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed five
putative class actions in the Superior Court of Maricopa County,
Arizona, on behalf of purported stockholders of Apollo Education
Group, Inc.  The actions were captioned as follows:  Casey v.
Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-051605 (Ariz. Super.
Ct. Feb. 25, 2016); Miglio v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et
al., CV2016-003718 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Feb. 26, 2016); Wagner v.
Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super.
Ct. Mar. 9, 2016); Ladouceur v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et
al., CV2016-002148 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Mar. 17, 2016); Simkhovich v.
Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-002339 (Ariz. Super.
Ct. Mar. 23, 2016).

The defendants include, among others, Apollo Education Group, Inc.
("AEG"), members of AEG's board of directors, AGM, Fund VIII, AP
VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., which is a subsidiary of funds
affiliated with Apollo Management VIII, L.P., and AGM, and
Socrates Merger Sub, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of
AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P.  The complaints allege that AEG's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to AEG's stockholders by
entering into a merger agreement that provides for AEG to be
acquired by AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., and Socrates Merger Sub,
Inc.

Plaintiffs claim that AEG's directors engaged in a flawed sales
process, agreed to a price that does not adequately compensate
AEG's stockholders, and agreed to certain unfair deal protection
terms in connection with the merger agreement.

Two of the complaints further allege (1) that AEG's directors
breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing a materially
incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement, and (2)
that the sales process was flawed because of certain alleged
conflicts with AEG's financial advisors.

All the complaints allege that AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., and
Socrates Merger Sub, Inc., aided and abetted the alleged breaches.
The complaints that name as defendants AGM and Fund VIII, allege
that those entities also aided and abetted the alleged breaches.
No amount of damages is specified in any of the complaints.

On April 12, 2016, the Court consolidated all the actions under
the following caption: In re Apollo Education Group, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super.
Ct.).  The parties have informed the Court that they have entered
into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of
the suit. The settlement contemplated by the memorandum will
provide for the dismissal with prejudice on the merits and release
of any and all claims by the proposed class against Defendants.

The settlement also will recognize that the pendency of the suit
was a factor in the decision by the purchasers of AEG to increase
the price offered to acquire all of the outstanding shares of
AEG's common stock from $9.50 per share to $10.00 per share. The
settlement is contingent upon the consummation of the merger
agreement, Plaintiffs' taking confirmatory discovery, the
execution of definitive settlement papers, certification of the
proposed class, and court approval.

The parties asked the court to extend the deadline by which the
Plaintiffs must file an amended consolidated complaint or
designate an operative complaint until November 8, 2016. The Court
responded with an order explaining that the case will be dismissed
on December 9, 2016, unless the parties submit a stipulated
judgment or stipulated dismissal before that date, or the court
otherwise extends the deadline for good cause.

On December 9, 2016, the parties requested that the court extend
the deadline by which Plaintiffs must file their amended complaint
to March 10, 2017. The motion explained that the Department of
Education had provided its response to a pre-acquisition
application for approval of the merger agreement, indicating that
the continuing participation of the University of Phoenix in Title
IV programs following consummation of the merger would be subject
to certain conditions. The motion further explained that the
defendants were evaluating the Department of Education's response,
its implications for the merger, and that any closing of the
merger would be delayed.

On December 15, 2016, the Court responded to the parties' motion
with an order explaining that it would dismiss the case on March
10, 2017, unless the parties submitted a final judgment or
stipulated dismissal before that date, or the Court otherwise
extends the deadline for good cause. Because this action is in its
early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can
be made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and
real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on
behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well
as other institutional and individual investors.


APPLE INC: Court Partially Grants Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United Stated District Court
for the Northern District of California granted in part Apple,
Inc.'s motion for summary judgement in the case captioned, ZACK
WARD, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 12-
CV-05404-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Ward and Buchar bring the putative class action against
defendant Apple Inc. alleging violations of Section 2 of the
Sherman Act for a conspiracy to monopolize trade in the market for
iPhone voice and data services. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of persons who purchased iPhones and paid for voice and data
service from AT&T between October 19, 2008 and February 3, 2011
(Class Period). Plaintiffs bring a single claim against Apple
under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, alleging that Apple conspired
with AT&T to monopolize an aftermarket for iPhone voice and data
services.

Apple contends that no such illegal antitrust aftermarket exists
under applicable laws and economic theories.

Mason appeals only from the court's dismissal of her claim under
the Loss Recovery Statute. Mason argues that the district court
erred in dismissing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) her claim under the
Loss Recovery Statute. She contends that she lost money while
playing in the virtual casino, which she asserts is an unlawful
"gaming device" within the meaning of the Loss Recovery Statute.

In her Order dated March 22, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/qoDT1R from Leagle.com, Judge Rogers found that with
regard to the sale of the iPhone and the purchase of the initial
two-year service plan with AT&T, there is no relevant antitrust
aftermarket, and, with respect to the more narrow claims because
AT&T did not begin providing unlock codes for such phones until
April 2012.

Thomas Buchar and Zack Ward are represented by Alexander H.
Schmidt, Esq. -- schmidt@whafh.com -- Francis M. Gregorek, Esq. --
- Gregorek@whafh.com -- Mark Carl Rifkin, Esq. -- rifkin@whafh.com
-- Michael Milton Liskow, Esq. -- liskow@whafh.com -- Rachele R.
Rickert, Esq. -- rickert@whafh.com -- and -- Randall Scott Newman,
Esq. -- Newman@whafh.com -- WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ
LLP

Apple Inc. is represented by Christopher S. Yates, Esq. --
chris.yates@lw.com -- Daniel Murray Wall, Esq. -- dan.wall@lw.com
-- and -- Sadik Harry Huseny, Esq. -- sadik.huseny@lw.com --
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP


AR RESOURCES: Loses Bid to Dismiss New Jersey FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case captioned, RAFAEL KASSIN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AR RESOURCES, INC. Defendant,
Case No. 16-4171 (FLW)(N.D.J.).

Plaintiff Rafael Kassin (Plaintiff) filed the putative class
action against a collection agency, Defendant AR Resources
(Defendant or ARR), on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, asserting violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA or Act), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692,
et seq., in connection with a debt collection letter that he
received from Defendant.

On February 18, 2016, Plaintiff received a debt collection letter
from Defendant, a debt collection agency. The one page letter
demanded payment on behalf of "Select Medical - Kessler" (Select
Medical) in the amount of $3756.55, and directed Plaintiff to
contact ARR in the event that the subject debt was covered by
Plaintiff's insurance: "If you carry any insurance that may cover
this obligation, please contact ARR's office at the number above."
The letter concluded with a validation notice written in bold
text, as mandated by the FDCPA.

In lieu of an answer, Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) argues that the collection
letter is in compliance with the standard set forth in Caprio v.
Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, 709 F.3d 142, 148 (3d Cir.
2013), because it does not explicitly direct a debtor to dispute a
debt by telephone.

In her Opinion dated at March 22, 2017 at https://is.gd/90Le7F
from Leagle.com, Judge Wolfson held that it would be inappropriate
for the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint because the
statement in regard to Plaintiff's insurance plan, as alleged, may
reasonably be interpreted to suggest that the debt could be
disputed by calling Defendant.

Rafael Kassin is represented by Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- and -- Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. --
Yitzchak@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC

AR Resources, Inc. is represented by Mark Richard Fischer, Jr.,
Esq. -- mfischer@highswartz.com -- HIGH SWARTZ LLP


ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES: Sued for Not Maintaining Cemetery
-------------------------------------------------------------
SoCal Patch reports that two people are suing the Archdiocese of
Los Angeles, alleging that a Mission Hills cemetery is in such
disrepair that they cannot find their loved ones' graves.

William Howard and Jodi Howard filed the proposed class-action
suit on March 24 in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging breach of
contract, negligence and fraud.

The lawsuit does not state the relationship, if any, between the
plaintiffs, whose attorney, Jeffrey Spencer, could not be
immediately reached.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, plus the creation of a trust
so that any wrongfully obtained monies can be returned to the
class plaintiffs.

An archdiocese spokeswoman said the lawsuit has not yet been
served so she had no comment on its allegations, but she issued a
general statement about Catholic cemeteries.

"The care of our burial grounds is a priority for our Catholic
cemeteries as a ministry of the church," the statement read.
"Catholic cemeteries, as religious ministries, are not required
under state law to create a financial reserve for an endowment
care fund.  However, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles voluntarily
maintains a designated fund that is equivalent to what is required
by state law to ensure the perpetual care and maintenance of the
final resting places of our Catholic faithful."

According to the lawsuit, San Fernando Mission Cemetery is the
burial location of William Howard's parents and brother as well as
Jodi Howard's sister and grandparents.

Burial contracts with the archdiocese call for 15 percent of the
amounts paid to be devoted to cemetery maintenance, the suit
states.

However, the archdiocese is failing to use the cemetery
maintenance fund monies at its burial grounds, leaving them
"desecrated" and "in a state of disrepair and neglect," according
to the complaint.

The gravesites are covered in weeds and grave markers have been
lost, damaged or removed, the suit alleges.

"Plaintiffs . . . cannot locate the gravesites of their decedents
. . .," the suit states.  "There can be no peace of mind or
assurance of a dignified and respectful final resting place ...
due to defendants' misconduct."


ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Class Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three securities class action lawsuits against Arrowhead
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. have been consolidated at the behest
of Joel Kuhn, according to an Order dated March 8, 2017, issued by
Judge Philip S. Gutierrez.  The Court also granted Kuhn's request
for appointment of lead plaintiff and the appointment of Levi &
Korsinsky LLP as lead counsel.

Movants Dean Flora, Stefan Muenchhagen and Mahir Patel also sought
their appointment as lead plaintiffs and of Rosen Law Firm as lead
counsel.

On March 23, Judge Gutierrez directed the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint.

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the Company
and certain executive officers were named as defendants in related
putative securities class actions filed on November 15, 2016,
December 2, 2016 and January 13, 2017 in the Central District of
California and respectively captioned:

     -- Meller v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
        No. 2:16-cv-08505,

     -- Siegel v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
        No. 2:16-cv-8954, and

     -- Unz v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
        No. 2:17-cv-00310.

The cases have been consolidated under "Meller".

The plaintiffs bring claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding certain public
statements in connection with the Company's drug research programs
and seek damages in an unspecified amount.

Additionally, a putative stockholder derivative action captioned
Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., (Los Angeles County Superior Court,
filed January 19, 2017) asserting substantially similar claims is
pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Company believes
it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend
itself in these matters.

The Company makes provisions for liabilities when it is both
probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be
reasonably estimated.  No such liability has been recorded related
to these matters.  The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome
of this matter and cannot accurately estimate any potential
liability the Company may incur or the impact of the results of
this matter on the Company. With regard to legal fees, such as
attorney fees related to these matters or any other legal matters,
the Company recognizes such costs as incurred.

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
that develops novel drugs to treat intractable diseases in the
United States.


AUSTRALIA: Queensland Faces Second Class Action Over 2011 Floods
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Clarke, writing for The Queensland Times, reports that up to
700 Ipswich businesses and individuals are expected to be part of
a new multi-million civil case into losses from the 2011 floods.

A second class action following the flooding event will look into
compensation for property owners who suffered losses which were
not directly related to physical damage.

The lawyers behind the claim have Ipswich businesses and
individuals in the firing line for "hundreds of millions" of
dollars in potential damages.

It was spearheaded by businesses man Phil Hassid's case who's
Ipswich development's value was significantly impacted by the
floods.

Gillis Delaney Lawyers senior partner Michael Gillis --
mjg@gdlaw.com.au -- said the new class action focused on Ipswich
property values which failed to re-surface from the flood damage.

He said up to 700 businesses and individuals could be part of the
case and had a strong claim to make.

"There are no doubt significant landholdings in the Ipswich area.
The people of Ipswich has now fallen a long way behind since the
floods when you look at property values.  The critical timing of
that was the floods," he said.

"What we're tyring to do is build a book of people to see the size
of the people that want to be involved and the extent of the
class."

Despite focusing on Ipswich businesses and individuals, the 52-day
hearing will take place in New South Wales Supreme Court.

"At the time the proceedings commenced, the Queensland Supreme
Court did not have a class action division and subsequently has in
February started up its own class action division, so that's why
it's down in New South Wales as New South Wales had the class
action division," Mr Gillis said.

Details of how to be involved will be available on the Gillis
Delaney Lawyers website.


BARRETT BUSINESS: Wins Final OK of $12MM Deal in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington has
entered final approval of Barrett Business Services, Inc.'s $12
million settlement to resolve the consolidated securities
litigation, according to the Company's March 8, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs in Michael Arciaga, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., filed an action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington against BBSI, Michael L. Elich, BBSI's Chief Executive
Officer, and James D. Miller, BBSI's then Chief Financial Officer.
The action purported to be a class action brought on behalf of all
BBSI shareholders alleging violations of the federal securities
laws. The claims arose from the decline in the market price for
BBSI common stock following announcement of a charge for increased
workers' compensation reserves expense. The lawsuit sought
compensatory damages, plus interest, and costs and expenses
(including attorney fees and expert fees).

On November 13, 2014, a second purported shareholder class action
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, entitled Christopher P. Carnes, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Carnes complaint named
the same defendants as the Arciaga case and asserted similar
claims for relief.

Similarly, on November 17, 2014, a third purported shareholder
class action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, entitled Shiva Stein, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Stein complaint named
the same defendants as the Arciaga and Carnes cases and asserted
similar claims for relief.

On February 25, 2015, the court ordered consolidation of the three
cases, and any new or other cases involving the same subject
matter, into a single action for pretrial purposes. The
consolidated cases were recaptioned as In re Barrett Business
Services Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the
Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension and
Annuity Funds as the lead plaintiff.

On March 21, 2016, before the court had ruled on the defendants'
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' first amended consolidated
complaint, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint, naming the same defendants. The second amended
consolidated complaint dropped certain allegations from the first
amended complaint and added new allegations relating to
disclosures in BBSI's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 9,
2016. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
consolidated complaint on May 23, 2016.

On October 26, 2016, before the court ruled on the motion to
dismiss, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated as of October 26, 2016 (the "Settlement"), to
settle the litigation. The settlement class includes all persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired BBSI common stock
in the period beginning February 12, 2013, through March 9, 2016,
and were damaged thereby, with certain exclusions.

The Settlement is intended to fully, finally and forever
compromise, settle, release, resolve, and dismiss with prejudice
the purported class action and all claims asserted therein against
the named defendants. In the Settlement, the defendants have
denied all allegations of wrongdoing and the plaintiffs have not
conceded any infirmities in their positions.

The Settlement called for the payment in cash of $12.0 million
(the "Settlement Fund") into escrow by November 29, 2016. Of this
amount, approximately $8.7 million was paid by BBSI's insurance
carriers and approximately $3.3 million was paid by BBSI.

The Settlement is subject to approval by the court and to other
customary terms and conditions. All potential class members were
notified of the Settlement in November 2016, and no requests to
opt out of the class were received by the deadline. Final approval
of the settlement was received at a court hearing held on February
22, 2017. The fees of counsel for the plaintiffs will be paid out
of the Settlement Fund following approval by the court.

Barrett Business Services, Inc., is a leading provider of business
management solutions for small and mid-sized companies.  The
Company has developed a management platform that integrates a
knowledge-based approach from the management consulting industry
with tools from the human resource outsourcing industry.


BELL: Ontario Court Allows Billing Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Mobile Syrup's Rose Behar, citing Rochon Genova, reports that Bell
recently sent out emails notifying certain past and present
customers that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has allowed a
class action suit against the telecom to proceed.

In its email, the operator outlines the action, which alleges Bell
is in breach of its contracts with customers and consumer
protection legislation by its billing practice of rounding up
calls to the next full minute, affecting customers subscribed
between August 18th, 2006 and October 1st, 2009.  The company says
it denies any liability, but notes that customers may be eligible
for compensation if it receives an unfavourable verdict.

Affected customers are automatically included in the class action,
but can choose to exclude themselves if they submit an opt-out
form by April 30th, 2017.

The law firms guiding the suit, Rochon Genova and Karp Litigation,
have provided more detailed instructions on the Rochon Genova
website and a dedicated perminuteclassaction.com website.  The
lawsuit first gained publicity alongside a similar per-minute
rounding suit against Telus in November 2014. The Telus case
appears to remain static.

The per-minute rounding practice meant that if customer calls
extended one second past a minute, for instance, the customer
would receive billing for two minutes' use.


BLUEMERCURY INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Espinosa"
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in the case
captioned, SANDRA ESPINOSA, Plaintiff, v. BLUEMERCURY, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case Nos. 16-CV-7202-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff filed the purported class action on December 16, 2016,
bringing claims against Bluemercury, Inc., Macy's, Inc., and Does
1-100, inclusively (Defendants), for violations of 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1681b(b)(2)(A) (Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)), 15
U.S.C. Sections 1681d(a)(1) and 1681g(c) (Fair Credit Reporting
Act), California Civil Code Section 1786 et seq., California Civil
Code Section 1785 et seq., failure to pay hourly wages under Labor
Code Sections 223, 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1997.1, and 1198,
failure to provide accurate written wage statements under Labor
Code Section 226(a), failure to timely pay all final wages under
Labor Code Sections 201-203, unfair competition under Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., and failure to pay
employees for all hours worked under 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et
seq.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer,
investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports (credit and
background reports) to conduct background checks on Plaintiff and
other prospective, current and former employees and use
information from credit and background reports in connection with
their hiring process" in violation of the various statutes
described above. Plaintiff also alleges that "Defendants failed to
pay the purported class the correct regular rate of pay and the
correct overtime rate of pay, failed to provide them with accurate
written wage statements, and failed to timely pay them all of
their final wages following separation of employment." The
Complaint seeks "unpaid wages, restitution, and related relief.

On January 9, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Espinosa's Complaint. Defendants argue that Espinosa's First
through Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth causes of action must be
dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim, that Espinosa's complaint fails in its
entirety because it is a shotgun pleading, and that Espinosa lacks
standing to pursue injunctive or declaratory relief.

In his Order dated March 22, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/xgSWxv from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar granted the
motion to dismiss with regard to Espinosa's seventh cause of
action because Plaintiff failed to plead facts to support her
allegations of willfulness under Labor Code Section 203 and ninth
cause of action without prejudice because Plaintiff now concedes
that security checks are "noncompensable postliminary activities"
and therefore not compensable under the FLSA, and her claims for
injunctive and declaratory relief with prejudice and denied with
regard to Espinosa's First through Fourth causes of action because
the Court found that these claims are adequately pleaded.

Sandra Espinosa is represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq. --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Howard Scott Leviant, Esq. --
scott@setarehlaw.com -- and -- Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq. --
thomas@setarehlaw.com -- SETAREH LAW GROUP

Bluemercury, Inc. and Macy's, Inc. are represented by David S.
Bradshaw, Esq. -- BradshawD@jacksonlewis.com -- and -- Nathan Wade
Austin, Esq. -- AustinN@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C.


BOB EVANS: Time to Appeal Final Settlement Approval Has Expired
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Evans Farms, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2017, for the
quarter period ended January 27, 2017, that the time to appeal the
final approval of its settlement resolving a class action lawsuit
has expired.

The Company said: "In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016 we settled
a class-action related to alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by misclassifying assistant managers as exempt
employees and failing to pay overtime compensation during the
period of time the employee worked as an assistant manager. In the
first quarter of fiscal 2016 we reached an agreement in principle
to resolve the litigation matter and recorded a $10,500 charge. In
the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016, the Court issued a Final
Approval Order on the settlement and the appeals period expired,
and we recorded a favorable adjustment of $3,344. The charge and
adjustment are included in results from discontinued operations in
our Consolidated Statements of Net Income."

Bob Evans Farms, Inc., produces and distributes a variety of
complementary home-style, refrigerated side dish convenience food
items and pork sausage under the Bob Evans(R), Owens(R) and
Country Creek(R) brand names.  These food products are available
throughout the United States at grocery retailers.  The Company
also manufactures and sells similar products to food-service
accounts, including Bob Evans Restaurants and other restaurants.


BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Mediation Underway in Pension Fund's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy and
Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds v. Brixmor Property Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02400 (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge
Sarah Netburn on March 10, 2017, entered an Order granting the
parties' joint request to adjourn the deadline for defendants to
file pre-motion letters from March 20 until 10 days after
notification from the parties that the mediation was unsuccessful.

In light of the parties' representation that the mediation process
can be concluded by the end of May 2017, the parties are directed
to submit a joint report on the status of mediation by no later
than May 31, 2017, though if the mediation is completed before
then, they should inform the Court on the outcome as soon as
practicable.

Brixmor Property Group Inc. and Brixmor Operating Partnership LP
said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 13, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that prior to the Company's February 8,
2016 announcement, the Company voluntarily reported to the SEC the
matters described.  The SEC has commenced an investigation with
respect to these matters, and the Company is cooperating fully. In
addition, the Company was contacted by the United States
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York which
advised that it is investigating these matters as well and the
Company is cooperating fully.

On March 31, 2016, the Company and the former officers referenced
above were named as defendants in a putative securities class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Court").  The complaint,
captioned Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers
Local 60 Benefit Funds v. Brixmor Property Group Inc., et al.
(Case No. 16-CV-02400 (AT)), asserts violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on the
facts described in the Company's February 8, 2016 press release
and Form 8-K.  Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties,
plaintiffs are required to file their amended complaint no later
than February 16, 2017.  The Company believes it has valid
defenses in this action and intends to vigorously defend itself.

Brixmor Property Group Inc. engages in the ownership, management,
leasing, acquisition and development of retail shopping centers.


BROWN AND JOSEPH: "Orea" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Leon Orea, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Brown And Joseph Ltd., and Does
1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-01737 (N.D. Cal., March 29, 2017) seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Brown and Joseph is a debt collection company who contacted
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone number in an attempt to
collect on an alleged debt. Defendant used an automatic telephone
dialling system to place its frequent and incessant collection
calls that were not for emergency purposes for which Plaintiff
incurred charges for incoming calls. Defendant did not possess
Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive such calls. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, 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
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Krafczek" Sues Over Unfair Billing Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Krafczek, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and
Neptune Hot-Dings US Corp., Defendants, Case No. 602715/2017,
(N.Y. Sup., March 30, 2017), seeks restitution and disgorgement of
Defendants' revenues obtained illegally, actual, statutory and
punitive damages and interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses and all other and further relief the Court may deem
just and proper for violations of New York General Business Law.

Defendants provide cable, internet and telephone services in the
New York metropolitan area under the Optimum brand name. They
allegedly bill consumers for the entirety of their then-current
billing period even if they cancel their service and return their
equipment before the end of their then-current billing period.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marisa K. Glassman, Esq.
     John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Telephone: (813) 223-5505
     Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
     Email: mglassman@forthepeople.com
            ivanchunis@forthepeople.com


CELADON GROUP: To Appeal Judgment in "Wilmoth" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Celadon Group, Inc. said it plans to appeal a judgment in a class
action lawsuit to the Indiana Supreme Court, Celadon said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 10, 2017, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2016.

A Company subsidiary was named as the defendant in Wilmoth et al.
v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a class action proceeding. A
summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs and upheld
by the Indiana Court of Appeals in February 2017.

The Company said, "We plan on appealing this judgment to the
Indiana Supreme Court. We believe that we would be successful if
the Indiana Supreme Court hears the appeal.  However, we believe
there is only a modest possibility that the court will hear the
appeal.  Accordingly, we have determined that it is probable that
the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs will stand."

"We had also been named as the defendant in Day et al. v. Celadon
Trucking Services, Inc., a second class action proceeding. A
judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs. We appealed this
judgment, but the judgment was subsequently upheld. The estimated
damages of $2.4 million were fully reserved in the June 30, 2016
fiscal quarter, and are still accrued for in other accrued
expenses as of December 31, 2016.  Subsequent to the quarter ended
December 31, 2016, we have made payment on this judgment."

Celadon Group, Inc. is a truckload carrier located in
Indianapolis, Indiana.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Final Settlement Approval Expected in Q3
----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Century Aluminum Company has reached a deal to
resolve the case, HAROLD DEWHURST and DAVID BRYAN, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, and United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC,
Plaintiffs, v. CENTURY ALUMINUM COMPANY, CENTURY ALUMINUM OF WEST
VIRGINIA, INC., CENTURY ALUMINUM MASTER WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, and
DOES 1 THROUGH 20, Defendants, C.A. No. 2:09-cv-01546 (S.D. W.Va.)
(Formerly C.A No. 2:09-cv-1033, S.D. Ohio), the Company said in
its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 10, 2017.

The settlement agreement is subject to final court approval which
is not expected before the third quarter of 2017, Century Aluminum
said in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, filed on March 14.

"On February 9, 2017, Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc.
("CAWV"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Century Aluminum Company
("Century"), entered into a Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement
Agreement") in potential settlement of the previously disclosed
retiree medical class action lawsuit pending before the District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia."

"As previously disclosed, in November 2009 CAWV filed a class
action complaint for declaratory judgment against the United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union (the "USW"),
the USW's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually and as
class representatives ("CAWV Retirees"), seeking a declaration of
CAWV's rights to modify/terminate retiree medical benefits. Later
in November 2009, the USW and representatives of a retiree class
filed a separate suit against CAWV, Century, Century Aluminum
Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does with respect to
the foregoing (collectively, the "Century Entities"). These
actions were consolidated under a lawsuit entitled Dewhurst, et
al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and Century Aluminum of West
Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al."

A copy of the Settlement Agreement is available at
https://is.gd/i6Ohsa

Century Aluminum Company is a global producer of primary aluminum
with aluminum reduction facilities, or "smelters," in the United
States and Iceland.


CIENA CORP: Awaits Decision on Bid to Toss 3rd Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ciena Corporation awaits ruling on its and other defendants'
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in the consolidated
shareholder lawsuit arising from its acquisition of Cyan, Inc.,
according to the Company's March 8, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2017.

From May 15 through June 3, 2015, five separate putative class
action lawsuits in connection with Ciena's then-pending
acquisition of Cyan, Inc. ("Cyan") were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware. On June 23, 2015, each of these
lawsuits was consolidated into a single case captioned In Re Cyan,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11027-CB. On July 9,
2015, the plaintiffs filed a verified amended class action
complaint, which named as defendants Ciena, a Ciena subsidiary
created solely for the purpose of effecting the acquisition
("Merger Sub"), and the members of Cyan's board of directors. On
August 5, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint. On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint which named as defendants the members of
Cyan's board of directors. Cyan, Ciena, and Merger Sub were not
named as defendants.

On July 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint,
which generally alleges that the Cyan board members breached their
fiduciary duties by engaging in a conflicted and unfair sales
process, failing to maximize stockholder value in the acquisition,
taking steps to preclude competitive bidding, and failing to
disclose material information necessary for stockholders to make
an informed decision regarding the acquisition. The third amended
complaint seeks (i) a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled
to a quasi-appraisal remedy, (ii) rescissory damages, (iii)
recovery through an accounting of all damages caused as a result
of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, (iv) compensatory
damages, and (v) costs including attorneys' fees and experts'
fees.

On August 5, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.

Ciena believes that the consolidated lawsuit is without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously.

Ciena Corporation is a network strategy and technology company,
providing solutions that enable a wide range of network operators
to adopt next-generation communication architectures and to
deliver a broad array of services relied upon by enterprise and
consumer end users.  The Company provides equipment, software and
services that support the transport, switching, aggregation,
service delivery and management of voice, video and data traffic
on communications networks.


CIENA CORP: Supreme Court Appeal in Securities Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties' motions for summary judgment in the consolidated
securities lawsuit remain pending in California, Ciena Corporation
said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 8, 2017, for the quarter period ended January
31, 2017.

As a result of the acquisition of Cyan Inc. in August 2015, Ciena
became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit. On April
1, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against
Cyan, the members of Cyan's board of directors, Cyan's former
Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of Cyan's initial
public offering. On April 30, 2014, a substantially similar
lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants.

The two cases have been consolidated as Beaver County Employees
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-14-
538355. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of
purchasers of Cyan's common stock pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus for Cyan's initial public
offering in April 2013, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief.

On May 19, 2015, the proposed class was certified. On August 25,
2015, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
based on an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the
case, which motion was denied on October 23, 2015.

On May 24, 2016, the defendants filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari on the jurisdiction issue with the United States
Supreme Court, to which the plaintiffs filed a brief in
opposition.

On November 18, 2016, the parties each filed motions for summary
judgment.

Ciena believes that the consolidated lawsuit is without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously.

Ciena Corporation is a network strategy and technology company,
providing solutions that enable a wide range of network operators
to adopt next-generation communication architectures and to
deliver a broad array of services relied upon by enterprise and
consumer end users.  The Company provides equipment, software and
services that support the transport, switching, aggregation,
service delivery and management of voice, video and data traffic
on communications networks.


CNA FINANCIAL: Class Suit over 401(k) Plus Plan Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit related to CNA Financial Corporation's
401(k) Plus Plan remains pending, CNA Financial Corporation said
in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 15, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In September 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against CCC,
Continental Assurance Company (CAC), CNAF, the Investment
Committee of the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan, The Northern Trust Company
and John Does 1-10 (collectively Defendants) over the CNA 401(k)
Plus Plan. The complaint alleges that defendants breached
fiduciary duties to the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan and caused prohibited
transactions in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 when the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan's Fixed Income
Fund's annuity contract with CAC was canceled.

The plaintiff alleges he and a proposed class of the CNA 401(k)
Plus Plan participants who had invested in the Fixed Income Fund
suffered lower returns in their CNA 401(k) Plus Plan investments
as a consequence of these alleged violations and seeks relief on
behalf of the putative class.

Management has only recently begun evaluating the lawsuit as this
litigation is in its preliminary stages, and as of yet no class
has been certified. CCC and the other defendants are contesting
the case and management currently is unable to predict the final
outcome or the impact on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations, or cash flows.

As of December 31, 2016, the likelihood of loss is reasonably
possible, but the amount of loss, if any, cannot be estimated at
this stage of the litigation.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation is a commercial insurance
writer and a property and casualty company.  The Company's
insurance products include standard commercial lines, specialty
lines, surety, marine and other property and casualty coverages.


COLUMBIA BRANDS: "Cardenas" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Adriana Barba Cardenas, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, v. Columbia Brands USA, LLC and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC655986 (Cal.
Super., March 30, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime, compensation for
missed breaks, damages for failure to provide wage statements and
reimbursement for business expenses under the California Labor
Code and Business and Professions Code.

Columbia Brands USA sells sporting apparel where Plaintiff worked
at their Los Angeles location. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Han, Esq.
      Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
      Daniel J. Park, Esq.
      Joy D. Llaguno, Esq.
      JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
      411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 230-7502
      Facsimile: (818) 230-7502


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Defends "Vento" Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 8-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8,
2017, that it is defending a putative class action lawsuit in
Delaware titled Vento v. Currey, et al.

On March 3, 2017, an alleged class action complaint was filed by a
purported stockholder of Consolidated Communications Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware captioned Vento v. Currey, et al. (Case No. 2017-0157)
against the members of the Company's board of directors (the
"Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit relates to the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of December 3, 2016, by and among the Company,
Falcon Merger Sub, Inc., a newly formed Delaware corporation and
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and FairPoint
Communications, Inc. ("FairPoint") (as amended by the First
Amendment to Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into as of
January 20, 2017, the "Merger Agreement"). Among other things, the
Lawsuit alleges that the members of the Company's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
soliciting approval of the Company's stockholders of the issuance
of the Company's common stock to stockholders of FairPoint in the
merger (the "Merger") contemplated by the Merger Agreement (the
"Stockholder Vote") because Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed by the Company on February 24, 2017
failed to disclose allegedly material information relating to the
retention, compensation and financial incentives of a financial
advisor to the Company in connection with the proposed Merger.
The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the Stockholder
Vote.


DENTAL SUPPLIES: Comfort Care Seeks Compliance of Subpoena
----------------------------------------------------------
In re DENTAL SUPPLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:16-cv-00696
(E.D.N.Y.), Comfort Care Family Dental, P.C. on March 30, 2017,
filed a Motion to Compel Strategic Data Marketing, LLC to comply
with Rule 45 subpoena, and in an Order dated April 3, 2017,
Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown granted Comfort Care's Motion for
Protective Order.

Meanwhile, Patterson Companies, Inc., said it continues to defend
itself against a consolidated antitrust litigation over dental
supplies, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2017, for the
quarter period ended January 28, 2017.

Beginning in January 2016, purported class action complaints were
filed against defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply
Co. and Patterson Companies, Inc. Although there were factual and
legal variations among these complaints, each alleged that
defendants conspired to foreclose and exclude competitors by
boycotting manufacturers, state dental associations, and others
that deal with defendants' competitors.   On February 9, 2016, the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered
all of these actions, and all other actions filed thereafter
asserting substantially similar claims against defendants,
consolidated for pre-trial purposes.

On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth
Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C.,
Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D.,
Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D.,
P.A. (collectively, the "putative class representatives") in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled
In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:16-
CV-00696-BMC-GRB. Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc. was added
as a defendant on October 22, 2016.

Subject to certain exclusions, the putative class representatives
seek to represent all persons who purchased dental supplies or
equipment in the U.S. directly from any of the defendants, since
August 31, 2008. In the consolidated class action complaint,
putative class representatives allege a nationwide agreement among
Henry Schein, Benco, Patterson and Burkhart not to compete on
price. The consolidated class action complaint asserts a single
count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable
relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally,
interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees and expert fees.  Putative class representatives have not
specified a damage amount in their complaint.

While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the
Company believes the consolidated class action complaint is
without merit, and the Company is vigorously defending itself in
this litigation.


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Defends Securities Class Suit in Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------
Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc., is defending a putative securities class
action lawsuit pending in Michigan, according to the Company's
March 8, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On November 10, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. and certain officers of the
Company. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
public filings made between October 9, 2014 and November 2, 2016
(the "potential class period"). The plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased stock in the potential class
period. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

The Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these
actions. The Company is unable at this time to determine whether
the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on its
results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. In the
opinion of management, the disposition or ultimate resolution of
all other currently known claims and lawsuits will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or liquidity.

Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc., is an independent specialty pharmacy.
The Company was formed and incorporated in Michigan in 1975 by its
Chief Executive Officer, Philip Hagerman, and his father, Dale,
both trained pharmacists, who transformed the Company's business
from a traditional pharmacy into a leading specialty pharmacy
beginning in 2005.


EASTERN PLUMAS: "Perez" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Perez, Lisa Taylor, Maria Martinez, and Barbara Nieminen,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Eastern Plumas Health Care Foundation, Inc., a
California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-at-00341, (E.D.
Cal., March 27, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime, premium wages for
missed and/or non-compliant meal and rest periods, interest, and
derivative penalties for violation of the California Labor Code,
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order and the
Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as non-exempt hourly Licensed
Vocational Nurses at Defendant's healthcare facilities in Portola,
California and Loyalton, California. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard A. Hoyer, Esq.
     Ryan L. Hicks, Esq.
     Jennifer E. McGuire, Esq.
     HOYER & HICKS
     4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 766-3539
     Fax: (415) 276-1738
     Email: rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com
            rhicks@hoyerlaw.com
            jmcguire@hoyerlaw.com

            - and -

     Walter Haines, Esq.
     UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
     5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
     Huntington Beach, CA 92649
     Tel: (562) 256-1047
     Fax: (562) 256-1006
     Email: walter@whaines.com


ELECTRICITY MAINE: Billing Practices Suit May Become Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward D. Murphy, writing for Portland Press Herald, reports that
lawyers suing Electricity Maine over the company's billing
practices are closing in on asking a judge to allow them to pursue
a class-action lawsuit, which would enable them to seek millions
of dollars in damages.

Tom Hallett, one of the lawyers representing the two Maine women
who have sued the electricity provider, said March 27 that lawyers
are waiting on a ruling from U.S. District Court in Bangor on a
motion to dismiss the case by one of the defendants in the
lawsuit.  If that is rejected, he said, the lawyers suing should
be able to ask for class-action certification soon thereafter.

The lawsuit alleges that the company promised customers that they
would pay no more than the "standard offer" price for electricity
but then increased the rates sharply after an initial period with
lower rates.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer
Chon.  But if it's certified as a class-action suit, lawyers could
add to the action tens of thousands of customers they allege were
overbilled and seek damages for the entire group.

Mr. Hallett said lawyers are likely to seek at least $35 million
from the lawsuit.

"That's what we've found so far," he said, adding that the amount
being sought could change as lawyers go through Electricity
Maine's records and seek to expand the number of plaintiffs.

Mr. Hallett said that Ms. Veilleux and Ms. Chon are not commenting
on the case.

Electricity Maine was one of the first electric supply companies
in Maine to attempt to sign up large numbers of residential
electricity customers after the state deregulated the electricity
market in the early 2000s.  In the first few years after
deregulation, which separated electric generating companies from
the utilities that deliver power to customers, most electric
suppliers went after large industrial companies instead of
individual homeowners because it was easier to work out a deal and
oversee the contract with a few big customers rather than
thousands of smaller accounts.

Electricity Maine's advertising said its charge for electricity
would never exceed the standard offer -- the price set by an
electric supplier and approved by the Maine Public Utilities
Commission for customers who don't designate a supplier -- said
Ben Donahue, another one of the lawyers suing Electricity Maine.

"That was clearly unsustainable," Mr. Donahue said, noting that
the company spent a lot of money trying to attract customers with
advertising and marketing between 2011 and 2014.  But after an
initial period during which the rates were below the standard
offer, the bills jumped, he said.

"They had to raise the rates to recoup their money" that they
spent to sign up customers, Mr. Donahue said.

That meant exceeding the standard offer rate for electricity,
Mr. Hallett said.

"They knew that in order to survive, they would have to charge
more than the standard offer," he said.

Mr. Donahue said most customers -- and Electricity Maine signed up
nearly 200,000 in the state, the lawsuit alleges -- saw prices
increase at least 50 percent above the standard offer price.  He
said it wasn't unheard of for customers to see rates double after
the initial first few months of lower rates.

Mr. Donahue said about 1,000 people have contacted his law office
since the lawsuit was filed last fall to follow its status and see
if they could join a class-action suit.  Mr. Donahue said his firm
is sending out regular newsletters to those who have contacted the
office to keep them up to date on the progress in the case.

The lawsuit names Electricity Maine and its parent company,
Provider Power; Spark Holdco, a Texas-based company that bought
Electricity Maine in May 2016; and Kevin Dean and Emile Clavet,
top executives at Electricity Maine.

Spark Holdco has filed the motion to dismiss the case, saying the
plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have an actionable
claim under the law.  A hearing on that motion is likely to be
held this spring.

John. J. Aromando, an attorney for Electricity Maine, said he and
the company have no comment on the lawsuit.


ELWYN: "Garcia" Sues Over Missed Meal/Rest Breaks, No Pay Stubs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corina Garcia, Rosemery Hernandes and Patricia Wallace, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ELWYN, a Pennsylvania entity, form unknown and Does 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case BC656112 (Cal. Super., March 30, 2017)
seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and for attorney's fees
and costs under the California Labor Code, California Business and
Professions Code and applicable Wage Orders issued by the
California Industrial Welfare Commission.

Defendants have allegedly failed to provide all legally-requisite
meal periods, state-mandated overtime wages for all overtime hours
worked, and failed to furnish accurate itemized wage statements.

Defendant operates specialized care facilities where Garcia and
Hernandez worked as direct service providers in Whittier and
Temple City, California. Wallace worked as a nurse in Elwyn's San
Gabriel location. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
     Gregg Lander, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
     5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
     Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
     Tel: (323) 549-9100
     Fax: (323) 549-0101
     Email: Bames@kbarnes.com


ENTEROMEDICS INC: Defends "Du" Shareholder Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
EnteroMedics Inc. is defending a purported shareholder class
action lawsuit commenced by Vinh Du in Delaware, according to the
Company's March 8, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2016.

On February 28, 2017, the Company received a class action and
derivative complaint filed on February 24, 2017 in U. S. District
Court for the District of Delaware by Vinh Du, one of the
Company's shareholders. The complaint names as defendants
EnteroMedics, the board of directors and four members of the
Company's senior management, namely, Scott Youngstrom, Nick
Ansari, Peter DeLange and Paul Hickey, and contains a purported
class action claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the board
of directors and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against the board of directors and unjust enrichment against the
Company's senior management.  The allegations in the complaint
relate to the increase in the number of shares authorized for
grant under the Company's Second Amended and Restated 2003 Stock
Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), which was approved by the Company's
shareholders at the Special Meeting of Shareholders held on
December 12, 2016 (the "Special Meeting"), and to the Company's
subsequent grant of stock options on February 8, 2017, to the
Company's Directors and senior management to purchase an aggregate
of 1,093,450 shares of the Company's common stock (the "Option
Grants").

In the complaint, the plaintiff contends that (i) the number of
shares authorized for grant under the Plan, as adjusted by the
board of directors after the Special Meeting for the subsequent
recapitalization of the Company, resulted from an alleged breach
of fiduciary duties by the board of directors, and (ii) the
Company's senior management was allegedly unjustly enriched by the
subsequent Option Grants.  The plaintiff seeks relief in the form
of an order rescinding the Plan as approved by the shareholders at
the Special Meeting, an order cancelling the Option Grants, and an
award to plaintiff for his costs, including fees and disbursements
of attorneys, experts and accountants.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are without
merit, and intends to defend the action vigorously.

EnteroMedics Inc. is a medical device company with approvals to
commercially launch its product, the vBloc Neuromodulation System
(vBloc System).  The Company is focused on the design and
development of devices that use neuroblocking technology to treat
obesity, metabolic diseases and other gastrointestinal disorders.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Claims Administration Process Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
The EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the claims
administration process remains ongoing in the "Wilson" class
action.

On June 18, 2014, a punitive class action entitled Dwight Wilson,
Jesus A. Avelar-Lemus, Jessie Cross, and Mattie Cross on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. EverBank, N.A.,
Everhome Mortgage, Assurant, Inc., Standard Guaranty Insurance
Company, and American Security Insurance Company was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In this class action case, the plaintiffs seek damages for
overpayment of lender placed insurance premiums, injunctive
relief, declaratory relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On July
17, 2015, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that was
approved by the court on January 20, 2016.

On February 8, 2016, the Court entered final judgment in the
matter. On March 2, 2016, EverBank paid $2.0 million for its
portion of the attorney fee award into an interest-bearing account
pursuant to the settlement agreement.

On August 9, 2016, the court granted the Jabranis unopposed motion
to dismiss appeal with prejudice. The claims administration
process remains ongoing.

EverBank Financial Corp. is a savings and loan holding company
with two direct operating subsidiaries, EverBank (EB) and EverBank
Funding, LLC (EBF). EB is a federally chartered thrift institution
with its home office located in Jacksonville,
Florida. EB's direct banking services are offered nationwide. In
addition, EB operates financial centers in Florida and commercial
and consumer lending centers across the United States. EB (a)
accepts deposits from the general public; (b) originates,
purchases, services, sells and securitizes residential real estate
mortgage loans, home equity loans, commercial real estate loans
and commercial loans and leases; and (c) offers full-service
securities brokerage and investment advisory services.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: MERS-Related Litigation Pending
---------------------------------------------------
The EverBank Financial Corp continues to defend against Mortgage
Electronic Registration Services-related litigation, EverBank said
in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 17, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Services (MERS), EverHome
Mortgage Company, EverBank and other lenders and servicers that
have held mortgages through MERS are parties to the following
material and class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege
improper mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure
to pay recording fees in violation of state recording statutes:

     (1) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting
Attorney General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al.,
filed in October 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga
County, Ohio;

     (2) Delaware County, PA, Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP, Inc.,
et al., filed in November 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of
Delaware County, Pennsylvania; and

     (3) On November 3, 2016, the surrounding counties of Portland
Oregon filed a MERS lawsuit against EverBank, MERS and other
financial institutions in Multnomah County entitled County of
Clackamas, et al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc,
et al.

In these material and class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in
each case generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the
defendants to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory
and punitive damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs.
We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
contest all such claims vigorously.

EverBank Financial Corp is a savings and loan holding company with
two direct operating subsidiaries, EverBank (EB) and EverBank
Funding, LLC (EBF). EB is a federally chartered thrift institution
with its home office located in Jacksonville,
Florida. EB's direct banking services are offered nationwide. In
addition, EB operates financial centers in Florida and commercial
and consumer lending centers across the United States. EB (a)
accepts deposits from the general public; (b) originates,
purchases, services, sells and securitizes residential real estate
mortgage loans, home equity loans, commercial real estate loans
and commercial loans and leases; and (c) offers full-service
securities brokerage and investment advisory services.


EXPEDIA INC: Opposed Request for Attorneys' Fee and Costs
---------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Defendants have
opposed the request of the Plaintiffs for payment of attorneys'
fees and costs.

"On May 8, 2006, the city of San Antonio filed a putative
statewide class action in federal court against a number of online
travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire, and
Orbitz. See City of San Antonio, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al., SA06CA0381 (United States District Court, Western District of
Texas, San Antonio Division). The complaint alleged that the
defendants failed to pay hotel accommodations taxes as required by
municipal ordinance.

The complaint asserted claims for violation of that ordinance,
common-law conversion, and declaratory judgment, and sought
damages in an unspecified amount, restitution and disgorgement. On
October 30, 2009, a jury verdict was entered finding that
defendant online travel companies "control hotels," and awarding
approximately $15 million for historical damages against the
Expedia companies. The jury also found that defendants were not
liable for conversion or punitive damages.

"On April 4, 2013, the court entered a final judgment holding the
online travel companies liable for hotel occupancy taxes to
counties and cities in the statewide class. The online travel
companies filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in
the alternative, for a new trial. The cities filed a motion to
amend the judgment regarding calculation of penalties."

"On February 20, 2014, the court denied the online travel
companies' motion. On January 22, 2015, the court granted in part
and denied in part the cities' motion regarding penalties. On
April 11, 2016, the court entered an amended judgment including
approximately $68 million in tax, interest and penalty amounts for
the Expedia companies, including Orbitz."

The online travel companies filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 6, 2016. Plaintiffs filed a
notice of cross appeal on May 12, 2016. Those appeals remain
pending.

"On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed a request for attorneys' fees
and costs in the trial court; the defendant online travel
companies opposed that request and it remains pending," the
Company said.

Expedia, Inc. is an online travel company, empowering business and
leisure travelers with the tools and information they need to
efficiently research, plan, book and experience travel.


EXPEDIA INC: Motion for Summary Judgment in Nassau Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment against intervenors in the case, Nassau
County, New York, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., is still
pending.

The Company says, "On October 24, 2006, the county of Nassau, New
York filed a putative statewide class action in federal court
against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia,
Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Orbitz.  Nassau County, New York, et al.
v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., (United States District Court,
Eastern District of New York). The complaint alleged that the
defendants failed to pay hotel accommodation taxes as required by
local ordinances to certain New York cities, counties and local
governments in New York.

The complaint asserted claims for violations of those ordinances,
as well as claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and
imposition of a constructive trust, and sought unspecified
damages. The county subsequently dismissed its case on May 13,
2011 on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction and refiled
in state court. County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al., (In the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau). The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the refiled state court case.

"On June 13, 2012, the court denied the online travel companies'
motion to dismiss. On November 27, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification."

"On April 11, 2013, the court granted plaintiff s motion for class
certification. The online travel company defendants appealed both
the court's certification order and its prior order denying their
motion to dismiss."

"On September 10, 2014, the New York Supreme Court Appellate
Division reversed the trial court's order granting the plaintiff s
motion for class certification. In a separate opinion, the
Appellate Division also affirmed in part and reversed in part the
trial court's denial of the online travel companies' motion to
dismiss."

"On September 11, 2015, the parties filed cross motions for
summary judgment. On September 25, 2015, Erie County, Orange
County, Rensselaer County and Saratoga County, New York filed a
motion seeking leave to intervene as plaintiffs in the lawsuit;
the defendant online travel companies opposed the motion."

"On February 23, 2016, the court granted the counties' motion to
intervene. The defendants filed their notice of appeal from the
February 23, 2016 Order on April 26, 2016."

"On July 20, 2016, the court entered a stipulated order permitting
the addition of another group of taxing jurisdictions -- the
Counties of Chautauqua, Oswego, Steuben, Westchester, and the City
of Saratoga Springs -- as Intervenor-Plaintiffs in the lawsuit and
agreeing that these Intervenor-Plaintiffs will be bound by the
disposition of the defendants' appeal from the Supreme Court's
February 23, 2016 Order granting intervention."

"On December 2, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment and denied plaintiff Nassau County's motion for
summary judgment. The court concluded that the enabling statute
for plaintiff's tax ordinance did not impose a tax on defendants'
fees. The court further invited defendants to file a successive
motion for summary judgment against intervenors Orange County,
Rensselaer County, Saratoga County and Erie County on similar
grounds."

The court also vacated its July 19, 2016 stipulation granting the
Counties of Chautauqua, Oswego, Steuben, Westchester, and the City
of Saratoga Springs permission to intervene.

"On December 23, 2016, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment against intervenors Orange County, Rensselaer County,
Saratoga County and Erie County; that motion remains pending."

Expedia, Inc. is an online travel company, empowering business and
leisure travelers with the tools and information they need to
efficiently research, plan, book and experience travel.


EXPEDIA INC: Town of Breckenridge's Appeal Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The Town of Breckenridge, Colorado's appeal in a class action
lawsuit remains pending, Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On July 25, 2011, the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado brought suit
on behalf of itself and other home rule municipalities against a
number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com,
Hotwire and Orbitz. Town of Breckenridge, Colorado v. Colorado
Travel Company, LLC, Case No. 2011CV420 (District Court, Summit
County, Colorado). The complaint included claims for declaratory
judgment, violations of municipal ordinances, conversion, civil
conspiracy and unjust enrichment. The online travel companies
filed a motion to dismiss. On June 8, 2012, the court granted in
part and denied in part the online travel companies' motion to
dismiss. On March 26, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The parties filed cross-motions
for summary judgment and, on April 20, 2016, the court granted the
online travel companies' motion for summary judgment, and denied
the town's motion for summary judgment, holding that the
Breckenridge Accommodations Tax does not apply to the online
travel companies or the amounts they charge for their services. On
June 8, 2016, the Town of Breckenridge filed a notice of appeal
from the court's order on the parties' cross motions for summary
judgment, as well as the court's prior rulings denying class
certification and dismissing claims for state sales tax.

On June 8, 2016, the Town of Breckenridge filed a notice of appeal
from the trial court's order on the parties' cross motions for
summary judgment, as well as the trial court's prior rulings
denying class certification and dismissing claims for state sales
tax. On September 8, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals dismissed
the Town of Breckenridge's appeal without prejudice for lack of a
final appealable judgment on the ground that the Town had failed
to demonstrate that the trial court had disposed of claims against
two non-online travel company defendants. On September 22, 2016,
the trial court granted the Town's motion to dismiss one of the
non-online travel company defendants and entered final judgment
for all other remaining defendants. On November 7, 2016, the Town
again filed notice of appeal. The appeal remains pending.

Expedia, Inc. is an online travel company, empowering business and
leisure travelers with the tools and information they need to
efficiently research, plan, book and experience travel.


EXPEDIA INC: Appeal in Village of Bedford Park Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by parties on the Court's summary judgment ruling in the
Village of Bedford Park, Illinois litigation remains pending,
Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "On April 5, 2013, a group of Illinois
municipalities (City of Warrenville, Village of Bedford Park, City
of Oakbrook Terrace, Village of Oak Lawn, Village of Orland Hills,
City of Rockford and Village of Willowbrook) filed a putative
class action in Illinois federal court against a number of online
travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire and
Orbitz. City of Warrenville, et al. v. Priceline.com,
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02586 (USDC, D. Ill.,
Eastern Division)."

The complaint sought certification of a class of all Illinois
municipalities (broken into four alleged subclasses) that have
enacted and collect a tax on the percentage of the retail rate
that each consumer occupant pays for lodging, including service
costs, denominated in any manner, including but not limited to
occupancy tax, a hotel or motel room tax, a use tax, a privilege
tax, a hotel or motel tax, a licensing tax, an accommodations tax,
a rental receipts tax, a hotel operator's tax, a hotel operator's
occupation tax, or a room rental, lease or letting tax.

The complaint alleged claims for relief for declaratory judgment,
violations of municipal ordinances, conversion, civil conspiracy,
unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust, damages and
punitive damages.

"On July 8, 2013, the plaintiff municipalities voluntarily
dismissed their federal court lawsuit and filed a similar putative
class action lawsuit in Illinois state court. City of Bedford
Park, et al. v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division). The online travel companies
removed the case to federal district court."

"On September 13, 2013, the online travel companies filed a motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' common law claims. On March 13, 2014, the
court granted the defendant online travel companies' motion and
dismissed the plaintiffs' common law claims. On October 3, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the court
denied without prejudice on January 6, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for class certification, which the court denied on
September 28, 2015."

The case proceeded only on the claims brought by the individual
plaintiff municipalities named in the suit. On February 1, 2016,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On February
29, 2016, the defendant online travel companies filed a cross
motion for summary judgment.

The Expedia and Orbitz defendants reached a settlement with one of
the plaintiff municipalities -- the city of Oakbrook Terrace,
Illinois and on March 4, 2016, those parties filed a stipulation
for voluntary dismissal of the city's claims. On June 20, 2016,
the court granted the defendant online travel companies' motion
for summary judgment as to 12 of the 13 plaintiff municipalities,
finding no liability for occupancy taxes in those jurisdictions.
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and
denied the defendants' motion, as to the Village of Lombard.

"On October 19, 2016, the trial court entered a stipulated
judgment on plaintiff Village of Lombard's claims. The parties
filed cross notices of appeal from the trial court's summary
judgment ruling in November, 2016. These appeals remain pending."

Expedia, Inc. is an online travel company, empowering business and
leisure travelers with the tools and information they need to
efficiently research, plan, book and experience travel.


EXPEDIA INC: Court Trims Claims in Buckeye Tree Lodge Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion to dismiss claims in the Buckeye Tree Lodge
lawsuit has been granted, Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "August 17, 2016, a putative class action suit
was filed in federal district court in the Northern District of
California against Expedia, Hotels.com, Orbitz, Expedia Australia
Investments Pty Ltd. and trivago relating to alleged false
advertising. Buckeye Tree Lodge and Sequoia Village Inn, LLC v.
Expedia, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:16-cv-04721-SK (U.S. District
Court, Norther District of California). Plaintiff has not effected
service of process as to trivago."

The putative class is comprised of hotels and other providers of
overnight accommodations whose names appeared on the Expedia
defendants' websites with whom the Expedia defendants did not have
a booking agreement during the relevant time period.

The complaint asserts claims against the Expedia defendants for
violations of the Lanham Act, the California Business &
Professions Code, intentional and negligent interference with
prospective economic advantage, unjust enrichment and restitution.

"On January 12, 2017, the court granted the Expedia defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims for intentional and negligent
interference with prospective economic advantage without
prejudice."

Expedia, Inc. is an online travel company, empowering business and
leisure travelers with the tools and information they need to
efficiently research, plan, book and experience travel.


EXPEDIA INC: Cases Against HomeAway.com Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. continues to defend lawsuits involving HomeAway.com,
Inc., Expedia said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On March 15, 2016, a putative class action suit
was filed in federal district court in Texas against HomeAway.com,
Inc. related to its recent implementation of a service fee. Arnold
v. HomeAway.com, Inc., Case No. l-16-cv-00374 (U.S. District
Court, Western District of Texas). The putative class is comprised
of homeowners that list their properties on HomeAway's websites
for rent."

The complaint asserts claims against HomeAway for breach of
contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
fraud, fraudulent concealment, and violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law.

"On April 15, 2016, another putative class action suit was filed
against HomeAway, also related to the implementation of a service
fee. Seim v. HomeAway, Inc., Case No. 1:16- cv-00479 (U.S.
District Court, Western District of Texas). The putative class is
comprised of homeowners that list their properties on HomeAway's
websites."

The complaint asserts claims against HomeAway for breach of
contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations
of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Kentucky Consumer
Protection Act, and other state consumer protection statutes.
HomeAway moved to compel arbitration and dismissal in both of
these cases on July 11, 2016; a hearing on both motions to compel
took place on August 24, 2016. On January 10, 2017, the court
denied HomeAway's motion in Arnold.

"On January 18, 2017, the court granted HomeAway's motion in Seim
and entered final judgment dismissing the case. On February 2,
2017, Seim filed a notice of appeal."

"On June 23, 2016, another putative class action was filed against
HomeAway.com, Inc., also related to the implementation of a
service fee. Brickman v. HomeAway, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00733
(U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas). This putative
class is comprised of homeowners from nine different states that
list their properties on HomeAway's websites."

The complaint asserts claims against HomeAway for breach of
contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, restitution, and
violations of various state consumer protection statutes. On
October 28, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint dismissing
certain named Plaintiffs and adding two new named Plaintiffs.

"On December 6, 2016, HomeAway filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which plaintiffs opposed. The motion remains
pending."

"On November 7, 2016, another putative class action was filed
against HomeAway.com, Inc., also related to the implementation of
a service fee. May v. Expedia, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
01211 U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas). The
complaint asserts claims against HomeAway for breach of contract,
fraud, fraudulent concealment, and violation of the Oregon
Unlawful Trade Practices Act. It also names Expedia as a
defendant."

Expedia, Inc. is an online travel company, empowering business and
leisure travelers with the tools and information they need to
efficiently research, plan, book and experience travel.


EYM KING: "Lockard" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------
James Lockard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EYM King Of Kansas LLC and EYM Group,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02181 (D. Kan., March 29, 2017)
seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and for attorney's fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

EYM Group operates Burger King franchise restaurants in Bonner
Springs, Olathe and Lenexa, Kansas. Plaintiff has worked at least
four different Burger King locations and claims to have been
denied overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sean M. McGivern, Esq.
     Nathan R. Elliott, Esq.
     GRAYBILL & HAZLEWOOD, LLC
     218 N. Mosley Street
     Wichita, KS 67202
     Tel: (316) 266-4058
     Fax: (316) 462-5566
     Email: sean@graybillhazlewood.com
            nathan@graybillhazlewood.com

            - and -

     A. Scott Waddell, Esq.
     WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
     2600 Grand, Suite 580
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Tel: (816) 914-5365
     Fax: (816) 817-8500
     Email: scott@aswlawfirm.com


FIDELITY AND GUARANTY: Appeal in "Ludwick" Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal related to the class action lawsuit by Dale R. Ludwick
remains pending, Fidelity and Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 6, 2017, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2016.

The Company said, "On January 7, 2015, a putative class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Western
District of Missouri (the "District Court"), captioned Dale R.
Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company,
Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd."

"The complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), requests injunctive and
declaratory relief and seeks unspecified compensatory damages for
the putative class in an amount not presently determinable, treble
damages, and other relief, and claims Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid
at least $0 for her annuity."

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

"Judgment was entered on February 12, 2016. On March 3, 2016,
Plaintiff Ludwick filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the "Court of Appeals")
from the District Court's Order and Judgment."

"As of December 31, 2016, the Company did not have sufficient
information to determine whether the Company is exposed to any
losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable
beyond an expense contingency estimate of $2 million, which was
accrued during the year ended September 30, 2016."

Fidelity and Guaranty Life Insurance Company provides annuities
and life insurance for over 700,000 policyholders across the
United States. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in Des
Moines, Iowa.


FORD MOTOR: Settles Fiesta, Focus Transmission Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that Ford Motor Co. has
agreed to provide "substantial cash payments" and other benefits
to the owners of about 1.5 million of its Fiesta and Focus models
that had to be repaired due to allegedly malfunctioning
transmissions, the proposed class said on March 24.

The deal comes after nearly four years of litigation, including a
year of settlement negotiations and covers owners and lessees of
2011 to 2016 Ford Fiestas and 2012 to 2016 Ford Focuses, the
plaintiffs said in their motion for preliminary approval of the
agreement.  Ford did not oppose the motion, but has denied any
wrongdoing related to the alleged malfunctions, which included
vehicles that slipped, bucked, kicked or jerked while the driver
attempted to accelerate.

Even though Ford offered customer service programs that included
free repairs and warranty extensions for potential class members,
many vehicle owners still had to spend time and energy seeking to
fix the alleged defect.  Some vehicles endured multiple software
and hardware repairs and due to backlogs often had to wait weeks
or months for the fix, the plaintiffs said.

Under the settlement, class members with three or more visits for
the replacement of one of the main transmission parts will receive
$200 for the third visit, plus increasing amounts for any
additional repair trips.  They could also choose to receive a
discount toward the purchase of a new Ford vehicle that would be
twice the amount of whatever cash they would've received.  In all,
these consumers could collect up to $2,325 in cash or $4,650 in
credit, the settlement says.

Given that Ford ordered about 6 million replacement parts for
roughly 1.5 million vehicles, the consumers expect that a
substantial amount of the class will qualify for this benefit.

Software repairs were also common, and the consumers said any
class members with at least three software repairs will get $50
for their third visit, plus an additional $50 for any subsequent
repair, up to $600.

Ford will also provide a private arbitration program through which
consumers will be able to get the automaker to repurchase or
replace defective vehicles, the plaintiffs said.  Resolution of
such claims will take one to two months, but the program's rules
also authorize repurchase or replacement of any vehicle that has
endured four attempts to fix its transmission hardware within five
years or 60,000 miles and that still doesn't work.

The program also extends the statute of limitations for claims to
six years after the issue arose or six months after the effective
date of the settlement, whichever is later.  Consumers who prevail
in arbitration will be awarded $6,000 in attorneys' fees, while
those who lose will be able to appeal the finding to a second
panel. Ford will receive no fees or appeals rights, the deal says.

Class members who believe they've either been improperly charged
for repairs or denied repairs that should've been covered under
Ford's new vehicle limited warranty can also pursue these claims
through a more limited arbitration process.  Ford will cover the
cost and if the consumer wins, they will receive free repairs or
warranty extensions and be reimbursed for out-of-pocket costs, the
settlement says.

The plaintiffs are further seeking to appoint 18 class
representatives who will each receive between $1,000 and $10,000,
separate from any benefits they get as part of the settlement
class.  Capstone Law APC wants to be named lead class counsel,
with Berger & Montague PC and Zimmerman Law Offices PC as class
counsel. Ford has agreed to pay up to $8.9 million in attorneys'
fees and costs.

Ford could not be reached for comment on March 27.

The proposed class is represented by Jordan L. Lurie, Tarek H.
Zohdy, Cody R. Padgett and Karen L. Wallace of Capstone Law,
Russell D. Paul of Berger & Montague and Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr.
of Zimmerman Law.

Ford is represented by Tamara A. Bush --
tbush@dykema.com -- Janet L. Conigliaro -- jconigliaro@dykema.com
-- Fred J. Fresard -- ffresard@dykema.com -- David M. George --
dgeorge@dykema.com -- Krista L. Lenart, John Mark Thomas and
Stephen C. Borgsdorf of Dykema Gossett LLP.

The case is Omar Vargas, et al., v. Ford Motor Co., case number
2:12-cv-08388, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.


FORZA SAFETY: "Jones" Hit Retaliation, Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Jones, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Forza Safety, LLC and
Albert Bernal, Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-00064, (W.D. Tex.,
March 29, 2017), seeks unpaid regular hourly wages, unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit
and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Forza provides roll-off dumpsters, portable restrooms, portable
hand-washing stations, potable water, above-ground septic tanks,
forklifts and manlifts and generators for the oil industry. Jones
worked for Forza at their Midland County, Texas facility from
December 24th, 2015 until June 9th, 2017. He was allegedly fired
for complaining about unpaid overtime pay. Jones brings this
action on behalf of himself and as representative of similarly
situated workers who file consents to join in this action. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


H&R BLOCK: Appeal From Summary Judgment in "Perras" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Perras' appeal from the order granting H&R Block, Inc.'s
motion for summary judgment remains pending, according to the
Company's March 8, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2017.

The Company said: "On April 19, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R
Block, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a
compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012
tax seasons. The plaintiff originally sought to represent all
persons nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were
charged the compliance fee, and asserted claims of violation of
various state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust
enrichment. In November 2013, the court compelled arbitration of
the 2011 claims and stayed all proceedings with respect to those
claims. In June 2014, the court denied class certification of the
remaining 2012 claims. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied on June 18,
2015. In January 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting claims of violation of Missouri and California state
consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment,
along with a motion to certify a class of all persons (excluding
citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee in the
state of California."

"We subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on all
claims. On April 29, 2016, the court granted our motion for
summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification as moot. The plaintiff filed an appeal
with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which remains pending."

"We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is
probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this
matter."

H&R Block, Inc.'s subsidiaries provide assisted and do-it-yourself
(DIY) tax return preparation solutions through multiple channels
(including in-person, online and mobile applications, and desktop
software) and distribute H&R Block-branded financial products and
services, including those of the Company's financial partners.
Tax returns are either prepared by H&R Block tax professionals (in
company-owned or franchise offices or virtually via the internet)
or prepared and filed by its clients through the Company's DIY tax
solutions.


H&R BLOCK: Lopez's Motion for Class Certification Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel H. Lopez, III's motion for class certification remains
pending, H&R Block, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2017, for the
quarter period ended January 31, 2017.

The Company said: "On April 16, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et
al. (Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to
retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff
seeks to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the
compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust
enrichment. We filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011
claims. The court denied the motion. We filed an appeal. On May 6,
2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed
the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for further
consideration of the motion. On March 12, 2015, the trial court
denied the motion on remand. We filed an additional appeal. On
March 8, 2016, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the
trial court. We filed an application for transfer of the appeal in
the Supreme Court of Missouri, which was denied. We subsequently
filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court, which was also denied. Plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification, which remains pending."

"We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is
probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this
matter."

H&R Block, Inc.'s subsidiaries provide assisted and do-it-yourself
(DIY) tax return preparation solutions through multiple channels
(including in-person, online and mobile applications, and desktop
software) and distribute H&R Block-branded financial products and
services, including those of the Company's financial partners.
Tax returns are either prepared by H&R Block tax professionals (in
company-owned or franchise offices or virtually via the internet)
or prepared and filed by its clients through the Company's DIY tax
solutions.


HENDERSON KITCHEN: Employees File Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that
employees have filed a class action lawsuit against Henderson
Kitchen, Chao Hsiung Kuo and Yeng-Lung Kuo, restaurant operators,
citing alleged breach of contract, unpaid wages and violation of
minimum wage law.

Rui Tong, Weijian Tang, Ya-Tang Chi, Chuan Geng, Kun Yang and
Junyi Xie filed a complaint on behalf of others similarly situated
on March 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against the defendants alleging that they refused to
pay proper compensation to the plaintiffs for their work.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
sustained damages from working without being adequately
compensated.  The plaintiffs hold the defendants responsible
because they allegedly failed to pay minimum and overtime wages to
the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek injunction, unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, compensatory damages, interest, up to $5,000
per plaintiff for failure to provide a time-of-hire notice
detailing rates of pay and payday, up to $5,000 per plaintiff for
failure to provide a pay stub, reimbursement, punitive damages,
court costs, interest and any further relief the court grants.
They are represented by Philip Downey of The Downey Law Firm LLC
in Unionville and John Troy of Troy Law PLLC in Flushing, New
York.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case
number 2:17-cv-01073-RBS


INDEPENDENT BANK: Continues to Defend Stanford-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit filed by alleged victims of fraud by Stanford
International Bank, Ltd., and other Stanford Entities, according
to the Company's March 8, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by
Independent Bank in connection with its acquisition of BOH
Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH, that
was completed on April 15, 2014. Several entities related to R. A.
Stanford, or the Stanford Entities, including Stanford
International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had deposit accounts at BOH.
Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from
SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including
BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, alleging, among other things,
that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL and other
Stanford Entities and seeking to recover damages and alleged
fraudulent transfers by the defendant banks.

On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
permission to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this
case, which motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended
Class Action Complaint asserts previously unasserted claims,
including aiding and abetting or participation in a fraudulent
scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that the Stanford
Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of certain BOH
officers.

Given the new allegations, Independent Bank notified its insurance
carriers of the claims made in the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint. The insurance carriers have initially indicated that a
"loss" has not yet occurred or that the claims are not covered by
the policies. However, Independent Bank is continuing to pursue
insurance coverage for these claims, as well as for the
reimbursement of defense costs, through the initiation of
litigation and other means.

Independent Bank believes that the claims made in this lawsuit are
without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. This is
complex litigation involving a number of procedural matters and
issues. As such, Independent Bank is unable to predict when this
matter may be resolved and, given the uncertainty of litigation,
the ultimate outcome of, or potential costs or damages arising
from, this case.

Independent Bank Group, Inc., is a registered bank holding company
headquartered in McKinney, Texas.  Through the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, Independent Bank, a Texas state chartered bank,
the Company provides a wide range of relationship-driven
commercial banking products and services tailored to meet the
needs of businesses, professionals and individuals.  The Company
operates 41 banking offices in the Dallas/North Texas area, the
Austin/Central Texas area, and the Houston metropolitan area.


INSPERITY INC: Employee Retirement Plan Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit involving Insperity, Inc.'s retirement plan
is at an early state, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "In December 2015, a lawsuit was filed seeking
class action status on behalf of participants in the Insperity
401(k) retirement plan that is available to eligible worksite
employees (the "Plan")."

"The suit was filed against us and the third-party discretionary
trustee of the Plan in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. It generally
alleges that the third-party discretionary trustee of the Plan and
Insperity breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by
selecting an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for
the Plan, by causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive
recordkeeping fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by failing to
monitor other fiduciaries, and by making imprudent investment
choices.

"We believe we have meritorious defenses, and we intend to
vigorously defend this litigation.

"The matter is at an early state and involves unresolved questions
of fact and law. As a result of this uncertainty, no provision has
been made in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Insperity, Inc., provides an array of human resources ("HR") and
business solutions designed to help improve business performance.


JACKSON NATIONAL: "Pease" Claims Retirement Plan Mismanaged
-----------------------------------------------------------
Becky A. Matthews Pease, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jackson National Life Insurance
Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00284, (W.D. Mich., March 29,
2017), seeks disgorgement of all revenues received from, or in
respect of the Jackson National Life Insurance Company Defined
Contribution Retirement Plan, equitable restitution and other
appropriate equitable monetary relief against Defendant, enjoining
the Defendant from further violations of its fiduciary
responsibilities, obligations and duties, equitable relief,
redress, to enforce the provisions of Employment Retirement Income
Security Act as may be appropriate, including appointment of an
independent fiduciary or fiduciaries to run the said plan, removal
of imprudent mutual funds as core investment options, transfer of
plan assets in imprudent mutual funds to prudent alternative
investments and removal of Plan fiduciaries deemed to have
breached their fiduciary duties.  The suit also seeks reasonable
attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred, prejudgment interest
and such other and further relief.

The Jackson National Life Insurance Company Defined Contribution
Retirement Plan is sponsored by Defendant Jackson National Life
Insurance Company, covering substantially all employees of Jackson
National. Jackson National selected high-cost proprietary
investment products offered and managed by Jackson National and
its affiliates, allowing Jackson National to maximize company
profits at the expense of the plan by collecting fees that greatly
exceed comparable low-cost non-proprietary investment products,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph C. Pagano, Esq.
      VIVIANO, PAGANO & HOWLET PLLC
      Mt. Clemens, MI 48043
      Telephone: (586) 569-1580
      Facsimile: (586) 469-1808
      Email: jpagano@vivianolaw.com

             - and -

      Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
      Michael McKay, Esq.
      John J. Nestico, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      8501 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
      Scottsdale, AZ 85253
      Telephone: (480) 428-0145
      Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
      Email: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
             mmckay@schneiderwallace.com
             jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

             - and -

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KIPELA CARPENTER
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-6994
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
      Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

             - and -

      Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
      KEHOE LAW FIRM
      1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 1020
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 792-6676
      Facsimile: (215) 990-0701
      Email: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com


KISLING NESTICO: Sued for Receiving Chiropractor Kickbacks
----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Conn, writing for cleveland.com, reports that a lawsuit
seeking class-action status in Summit County accuses personal-
injury law firm Kisling, Nestico and Redick (KNR) of defrauding
clients injured in car accidents by receiving kickbacks from
chiropractors.

The suit is filed on behalf of former KNR clients Member Williams,
Naomi Wright and Matthew Johnson, the complaint in the Summit
County Court of Common Pleas.  It accuses the law firm -- known
for its "Hurt in a car. . . Call KNR!" ads -- and owners, Alberto
Nestico and Robert Redick, of working with chiropractors who cold-
called people "in the wake of painful car accidents when the
clients are at their most vulnerable," offering free
transportation to a chiropractic clinic.

A lawsuit alleges that a local injury law firm, KNR, charged a
woman a fee for an investigation that never happened.  It seeks
class action status.

Once at the clinic, the lawsuit says injured patients were coerced
into unwanted healthcare, referred to Kisling, Nestico and Redick
and asked to sign fee agreements on the spot.  The lawsuit also
claims that KNR introduced clients to now-defunct Liberty Capital
Funding, where clients received loans with interest rates of 49
percent and higher, plus fees, as advances on the pending
lawsuits.

Ohio law prohibits attorneys from working with chiropractors for
patient referrals and from compensating chiropractors for
referral.

"KNR denies the allegations in the complaint," said Jim Popson, of
Sutter O'Connell Attorneys in Cleveland.

According to the complaints, KNR rewarded high-referring
chiropractors by taking them on vacation to Cancun, Mexico, and
the Dominican Republic.

According to emails quoted in the complaint, Nestico ordered KNR
attorneys to direct all KNR clients to take out the high-interest
loans with Liberty Capital, which was recently formed and was run
out of the home of the company's CEO, who had most recently worked
as an insurance broker.

In addition, the suit argues KNR charged clients "investigation
fees" for investigations that were never performed.  In emails,
the KNR employees referred to the fees as "sign up fees,"
according to the lawsuit.

Emails in the lawsuit say 10 KNR clients were charged for
investigations performed by the same investigator on the same day
all over Ohio, including in Cleveland and Dayton, approximately
200 miles apart.

"KNR pressures its clients into unwanted healthcare to serve the
interests of the providers with whom it maintains quid pro quo
relationships," the lawsuit says.


LAPOLLA INDUSTRIES: Legal Fees Dispute in "Markey" Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dispute over legal fees remains pending in a class action lawsuit
against Lapolla Industries, Inc., Lapolla Industries, Inc. said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 15, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

A complaint initially entitled Neil and Kristine Markey,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. Lapolla industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
Lapolla International, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Delfino
Insulation Company, Inc., a New York Corporation, Defendants, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York and served on or about October 10, 2012 and amended
last on November 11, 2013.

Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit only individually, having amended
out any request for a class action. The complaint alleged, among
other things, that Lapolla designed, labeled, distributed, and
manufactured spray polyurethane foam insulation, which created a
highly toxic compound when applied as insulation resulting in
exposure to harmful gases. Plaintiffs sought: actual,
compensatory, and punitive damages; injunctive relief; and
attorney fees.

Lapolla considered the allegations to be without merit and
vigorously defended the allegations. On February 4, 2015, the
Court dismissed the litigation with prejudice, per the voluntary
request of Plaintiffs upon the advice of their new counsel and
after their original litigation counsel withdrew citing
irreconcilable differences with the Plaintiffs.  The Court
retained jurisdiction to address a pending motion for sanctions
filed by Lapolla.

The primary basis for Lapolla's motion for sanctions is the
Plaintiffs' and their original attorney's filing of the lawsuit
without sufficient factual basis for the claims of personal injury
and for failing to comply with discovery obligations to produce
numerous potentially dispositive documents that Plaintiffs knew
existed and their original counsel either knew or should have
known existed.

Lapolla seeks to recover over $800,000 in legal fees for the
defense of the lawsuit. All motions have been filed with the Court
and Lapolla is awaiting a final ruling. The final outcome of this
litigation cannot be determined at this time.

Lapolla Industries, Inc. is a national manufacturer and supplier
of spray polyurethane foams and acrylic coatings targeting
commercial and industrial and residential building envelope
applications in the roofing and insulation construction
industries.  The Houston, Texas-based Company is also a national
distributor of equipment for application of its products.


LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Robert Sellers Agrees to Drop Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case captioned, Robert Sellers v. Lattice
Semiconductor Corporation et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00081 (D.
Del.), has agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case.

Judge Gregory M. Sleet on March 22 entered an Order granting the
parties' stipulation.

The parties have agreed that Plaintiff's Counsel will file an
Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.

Lattice Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6,
2017, that "On January 27, 2017, an alleged stockholder of Lattice
filed a putative class action captioned Sellers v. Lattice
Semiconductor Corp., Case Number 1:17-cv-00081, in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware
Federal Action"). The defendants in the action are Lattice and the
members of Lattice's board of directors."

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated there under by failing to disclose all material facts
concerning the Merger in the proxy statement filed on January 27,
2017.

The complaint seeks an order: enjoining defendants from
consummating the proposed transaction pending disclosure of
additional information, or, if the proposed transaction is
consummated, an order rescinding it and awarding rescissory
damages; directing defendants to account for damages allegedly
suffered by plaintiff and the putative class; awarding plaintiff
the costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees; and granting such other and further relief as the
court may deem proper.

"On January 30, 2017, the plaintiff in the Delaware Federal Action
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the proposed transaction until defendants
disclose additional information regarding the transaction."

"Lattice denies the allegations in the Delaware Federal Action,
believes that the proxy statement disclosed all material
information, and denies that any supplemental disclosure is
necessary."

Lattice operates a fabless semiconductor company located at 111
Southwest 5th Avenue, Suite 700, Portland, Oregon 97204.


LOUISIANA: Sued over Solitary Confinement for Death Row Inmates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class action claims in Baton Rouge, death row inmates at
Louisiana's Angola prison are subjected to solitary confinement
regardless of their behavior, a violation of their human and
constitutional rights.

In a complaint filed in the Middle District of Louisiana on March
29, the three lead plaintiffs challenge the "cruel and baseless
placement of prisoners who are in prolonged and complete isolation
on death row."

They say they are "subjected to indefinite extreme isolation,
devoid of mental stimulation and having only sporadic human
interaction."

One prisoner said that once placed in isolation he only comes into
contact with another human being when he is placed in shackles
before the one hour a day he is let out of his cell.

Louisiana State Penitentiary is located on the former site of a
plantation, on a remote 18,000 acres near the Mississippi
Louisiana-border. It is enclosed on three sides by the Mississippi
River, and was long ago nicknamed "Angola" after the country that
most of the slaves on the former plantation came from.

It is the largest maximum security prison in the United States,
and more than 70 prisoners are currently on its death row.

Death row inmates at Angola are confined for 23 hours a day in
small, windowless cells.

"The harsh repercussions of prolonged isolation are well-known
among mental health experts, physicians and human rights experts
in the United States and around the world. It is agreed that
solitary confinement puts prisoners at risk of substantial
physical, mental and emotional harm. Research has shown that
prolonged solitary confinement results in heightened levels of
anxiety, chronic depression and sensitivity to stimuli," the
complaint says.

In recent years, leaders in the United States and in other parts
of the world have condemned the use of solitary confinement as
inhumane, the lawsuit says.

"These dehumanizing conditions are detrimental to the Class
Members and have caused them severe and irreversible physical and
psychological harm," the complaint continues. "Over time, these
Class Members have slowly lost their cognitive capacities and
ability to communicate effectively. Additionally, any pre-existing
mental health illnesses of the Class Members have been exacerbated
by the isolated confinement," and yet, Angola continues its
practice of long-term isolation for prisoners sentenced to death
for their criminal convictions."

The lawsuit points to a 2016 report conducted by the Justice
Department that recommends the use of solitary confinement only
when "it serves a specific penal purpose and when accompanied by
regular review by a multi-disciplinary committee."

Another recommendation, issued by the United Nations in 2015, says
solitary confinement should be used in only the direst of
situations and should go on for no more than 15 days.

"Contrary to these recommendations," the lawsuit says, prisoners
at Angola "have been held in solitary confinement for decades
without any rational justification and without being afforded any
process or mechanism to address their confinement or to rectify
the harm it has inflicted on them."

The three lead plaintiffs have been in solitary for 25 to 31
years.

Plaintiff Marcus Hamilton, 56, has spent the last 25 years in
solitary confinement.

Hamilton "has observed how prisoners change after years on the
row. He has seen formerly articulate prisoners slowly lose their
mind and their ability to hold logical conversations and interact
with others," the lawsuit says.
Prisoners on death row are not given the chance to challenge their
placement there, the lawsuit says.

Angola has 10 outdoor pens for death row inmates, who are let out
three times per week for one hour.

Exercise, work to earn money, and arts and crafts are not allowed
in solitary confinement, and prisoners who already suffer from
mental illness tend to only get worse.

Plaintiff Winthrop "Earl" Eaton has been in solitary confinement
for the past thirty years. He has been diagnosed with
schizophrenia and has been deemed incompetent to be executed.
Eaton spends the majority of his time alone in his cell watching
television, the lawsuit says.

Plaintiff Michael Perry, who has been in solitary confinement for
31 years, has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and has
been deemed incompetent to be executed. Solitary confinement has
worsened his mental state.

Aside from taking antipsychotic medication, he isn't receiving any
mental health treatment. Perry's ability to communicate is
extremely limited. His speech is mostly nonsensical, and his
comprehension is very low. Perry suffers from hallucinations and
psychosis and is unable to hold a productive conversation. Because
of this, he is "ignored by the prison guards," the lawsuit says.

A spokesman for the prison said in a phone call the agency can't
comment on pending litigation.

Betsy Ginsberg, an attorney in New York who represents some of the
plaintiffs, told the Associated Press that other states have far
less restrictive conditions for inmates on death row.

"I do think there has been a shift in how we as a country think
about isolation of prisoners," said Ginsberg, director of the
Cardozo Civil Rights Clinic at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
in New York.

Nicholas Trenticosta, the attorney in New Orleans who filed the
lawsuit, told the AP the case is the first of its kind to be filed
at Angola. Pieter Van Tol, of Hogan Lovells US LLP of New York, is
also representing the plaintiffs.

In 2013, a separate group of inmates filed a lawsuit challenging
what they said were dangerous heat levels on death row.

A federal judge ruled in their favor, and ordered prison officials
to use new, low-tech heat remediation measures.

The class plaintiffs in the current case seek an injunction that
would release them from solitary confinement, in addition to
regular physical and mental health checks and compensation for the
years spent in solitary confinement, including punitive and
nominal damages.

The case is captioned, MARCUS HAMILTON; WINTHROP EATON; and
MICHAEL PERRY, on their own behalf, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated prisoners,
Plaintiffs -against- DARREL VANNOY, Warden of Angola; Burl Cain,
former Warden of Angola; James Cruze, Warden of Death Row; Leslie
Dupont, Deputy Warden of Security; and James Leblanc, Secretary of
Louisiana Department of Public Safety Corrections. Defendants.
Case 3:17-cv-00194-SDD-RLB (M.D. La., March 29, 2017).


LUFTHANSA: Judge Trims Claims in Class Action Over Flight Delays
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore, Kat Greene, Jessica Corso and Diana Novak Jones,
writing for Law360, report that an Illinois federal judge on March
27 deeply trimmed legal claims against airline Lufthansa in a
class action over flight delays and cancelations, rejecting class
claims that would have covered numerous flights over a period of
years.

Plaintiff David Shabotinsky says he was flying from Chicago to Tel
Aviv, Israel, in August 2014 but arrived five hours later than he
had anticipated when his connecting flight in Frankfurt was
canceled and he was rebooked on another flight.  He said he had to
spend money while he was waiting around in an airport where he
wasn't supposed to be.

U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo on March 27 granted Lufthansa's
motion to dismiss claims covering a class based on "all
international Lufthansa flights since August 2014," saying that
the central question of whether Lufthansa took all possible
measures to avoid the issue could not be resolved in a class of
this type.

"Such a class would encompass disparate claims based on delays
arising in connection with hundreds of flights.  A class of such
proportions is not maintainable," the judge said.

She also dismissed two claims over Lufthansa's supposed failure to
respond appropriately to pre-suit notices of claim, which she
called a "non-existent legal requirement" based on the plaintiff's
mistaken belief that plaintiffs must serve such notices or
settlement demands before suing, "and that air carriers are
required to give 'meaningful consideration' to such claims and
demands.  This is mistaken," the judge said.

The judge, however, kept claims for economic damages and said that
there may be a legitimate class of people who were passengers on
one or both of Mr. Shabotinsky's flights.  That is still to be
hammered out.

The judge also denied the airline's request that the plaintiffs'
lawyers be sanctioned, saying that although she couldn't say that
Lufthansa's beefs over whether a redress amount specified in the
complaint was a "cap" or a "set amount" for damages, the issue was
a quite minor one, and that Lufthansa was incorrect that
Mr. Shabotinsky had no basis on which to bring any class claims.

Meanwhile, earlier in the suit, Lufthansa beat an attorney
sanctions bid when a judge ruled the lawyer had not waited long
enough before filing his papers in court.  Lawyer Vladimir
Gorokhovsky, who represents Mr. Shabotinsky, broke a rule of civil
procedure when he requested sanctions over Lufthansa's supposed
harassment of him -- just four days after Lufthansa filed the
sanctions motion that prompted his own motion.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2) has a safe-harbor
provision that restricts motions for sanctions to after the target
attorney has had a copy of the filing for 21 days.  But Mr.
Gorokhovsky filed his dueling sanctions motion less than a week
after Lufthansa's, the judge said.

Mr. Gorokhovsky amended the complaint in August, cutting it down
to 35 pages and removing references to European Commission
Regulation 261/2004.

Mr. Shabotinsky is represented by Vladimir Gorokhovsky of the Law
Offices of Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky.

Lufthansa is represented by Anthony Battista --
abattista@condonlaw.com -- and Christopher Christensen --
cchristensen@condonlaw.com -- of Condon & Forsyth LLP and Brent
Austin -- baustin@eimerstahl.com -- and Jacob Hamann --
jhamann@eimerstahl.com -- of Eimer Stahl LLP.

The case is Shabotinsky v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, case number
1:16-cv-04865, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.


LULAROE: Plaintiffs Attorneys to Push Through Sales Tax Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
April Brown and John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, report
that popular online fashion company LuLaRoe says it has fixed the
problem that led to a class action fraud lawsuit and issued
refunds, but plaintiffs attorneys object to the company's actions
and are moving forward with the case.

Rachael Webster filed her complaint Feb. 17 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging LuLaRoe
knowingly overcharged customers in the form of fraudulent sales
taxes.

"We are fully aware of this issue and have invested significant
resources to address it," a spokesperson for LuLaRoe recently told
Legal Newsline.

Independent sales representatives for LuLaRoe are required to use
an online, proprietary point-of-sale system called "Audrey" that
automatically adds sales tax according to the location of the
salesperson, rather than the customer, and that independent
representatives do not have the ability to adjust the sales tax.

The complaint alleges that in some cases "the sales tax surcharge
is more than the price advertised online for the product and
purchasers do not become aware of this overcharge until Audrey
sends them an invoice."

The complaint accuses LuLaRoe of overcharging buyers "up to 10.25
percent every time a consultant who lives in a jurisdiction that
taxes clothing makes a sale where a delivery is made to a
jurisdiction that does not," and of not remitting overcharges to
that taxing authority that governs the transaction.

LuLaRoe's spokesperson offered an explanation for the issue,
stating that "a former technology vendor had a software failure
that misidentified the accurate location of certain customers."

"We have contracted a new point-of-sale vendor to accurately
identify sales tax moving forward," the company's spokesperson
said.

"In addition, we have already issued refunds for incorrect sales
tax collection to customers who contacted us directly to identify
their proper location, and we are in the process of proactively
refunding all affected customers.  We have an independent,
dedicated account of all sales tax collected that is segregated
from the operating funds of the company."

The formal charges in the complaint include breach of constructive
trust, unjust enrichment, unfair trade practices and consumer
protection law, and conversion and misappropriation.  The
complaint states that the plaintiff is seeking reimbursement of
the alleged fraudulent charges, as well as reimbursement for
attorneys fees and court costs.

Two Pittsburgh firms are representing Webster -- Carlson Lynch and
Cohen & Grigsby.  They recently asked Judge David Cercone to
prevent LuLaRoe from confusing class members.

The motion claimed LuLaRoe has "changed its tune" since the
lawsuit was filed, telling Forbes it has reimbursed any individual
identified as having been improperly charged sales tax.

After refusing to issue refunds previous to the filing of the
lawsuit, the company is now doing so to mislead potential class
members about the benefits of the lawsuit, attorneys say.

"As part of an apparent effort to put the genie back into the
bottle regarding its unlawful collection of sales taxes . . .
LuLaRoe is engaged in misleading communications with Plaintiff and
the putative class members, and in some cases, has wired
unaccounted-for amounts to their credit cards or bank accounts
without consent or explanation," plaintiffs attorneys wrote
March 21.

"While these efforts will presumably be framed by Defendant as a
belated effort to 'do the right thing' by refunding unspecified
amounts to some class members without any accompanying explanation
or accounting, the reality is most putative class members are
unaware that they were charged unlawful amounts in the first
instance."

Class members have no basis for determining whether a refund makes
them whole, attorneys wrote.

Judge Cercone has ordered a response from the company in April.
Plaintiffs attorneys also recently filed a motion to certify their
class.

The motion says a class exists because LuLaRoe charges each
customer the same way.

It also says Webster is an adequate class representative, having
been charged sales tax on at least 12 purchases even though her
home state of Pennsylvania does not permit sales tax on clothing.
She has been charged $35 in sales tax.


MAJOR LEAGUE: Youth Soccer Club's Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that citing lack of jurisdiction,
a federal judge in Sherman, Texas on March 29 dismissed a class-
action lawsuit filed by youth soccer clubs claiming they are
entitled to reimbursement for training fees for players they
developed who later became professionals.

The case is captioned, DALLAS TEXANS SOCCER CLUB, CROSSFIRE
FOUNDATION, INC.,  SOCKERS FC CHICAGO, LLC v. MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER
PLAYERS UNION, CLINT DEMPSEY, DEANDRE YEDLIN, MICHAEL BRADLEY Case
4:16-cv-00464-ALM (E.D. Tex., March 29, 2017).


MASIMO CORP: 11th Cir. Appeal in Product Liability Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in a product
liability class action lawsuit are waiting for the decision of the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company said, "The manufacture and sale of products using
Masimo SET(R) and licensed rainbow(R) technology expose us to
product liability claims and product recalls, including, but not
limited to, those that may arise from unauthorized off-label use,
which is use of a device in a manner outside the indications for
use cleared by the FDA, malfunctions, design flaws or
manufacturing defects related to our products or the use of our
products with incompatible components or systems."

"On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants
in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized
Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further
amended complaint was filed adding a third participant. The
complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in
connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided
at the request of study investigators for use in the trial.

"On August 13, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama granted summary judgment in favor of the
Company on all claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama's decision.
The appellate hearing before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
was held on December 13, 2016, and the parties are awaiting a
decision.

"The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will
ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore,
no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements."

Masimo is a global medical technology company that develops,
manufactures and markets a variety of noninvasive patient
monitoring technologies.


MASIMO CORP: D.C. Cir. Appeal in Junk Fax Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
The Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit over unsolicited facsimile advertisements are
waiting for the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company said, "On January 2, 2014, a putative class action
complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California by Physicians Healthsource,
Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited
facsimile advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection
Act of 2005 and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for
each alleged violation, treble damages if the District Court finds
the alleged violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and
injunctive relief. On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion
to stay the case pending a decision on a related petition filed by
the Company with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On
May 22, 2014, the District Court granted the motion and stayed the
case pending a ruling by the FCC on the petition. On October 30,
2014, the FCC granted some of the relief and denied some of the
relief requested in the Company's petition. Both parties appealed
the FCC's decision on the petition."

"On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the parties'
joint request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on
the appeal. The appellate hearing in the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals was held on November 8, 2016, and the parties are awaiting
a decision.

"The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the
claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail.
The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will
ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore,
no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements."

Masimo is a global medical technology company that develops,
manufactures and markets a variety of noninvasive patient
monitoring technologies.


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Review Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
MaxPoint Interactive, Inc., awaits ruling on the Plaintiff's
motion to reconsider an order dismissing the first amended
complaint filed in a securities lawsuit pending in New York, the
Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 8, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain
investment banking firms who acted as underwriters in connection
with the Company's IPO, have been named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed August 31, 2015 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act by not including information regarding
customer concentration, which the complaint characterizes as a
known trend and/or significant factor required to be disclosed
under federal securities regulations. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, interest and other costs.

The Court appointed a Lead Plaintiff on November 18, 2015, and on
January 19, 2016 the Lead Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint that repeats the same substantive allegations included
in the initial complaint and continues to seek unspecified
damages. On March 24, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the First Amended Complaint. The Lead Plaintiff filed an
opposition to that motion on May 9, 2016, and the Company filed a
reply brief on June 8, 2016.

On February 13, 2017, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York filed a Memorandum Opinion and Order
dismissing the First Amended Complaint against the Company, the
individual defendants and the underwriter defendants. The
Plaintiff filed a motion with the Court to reconsider the Order of
dismissal and reinstate the claims against the defendants on
February 27, 2017. The Company anticipated filing an opposition
brief by no later than March 13, 2017.

The Company disputes these claims and is defending this matter
vigorously, and is unable to estimate the amount of a potential
loss or range of potential loss, if any. Legal fees are expensed
in the period in which they are incurred.

MaxPoint Interactive, Inc., is a marketing technology company that
generates hyperlocal intelligence to optimize brand and retail
performance.  The Company provides a platform for brands to
connect the digital world with the physical world through
hyperlocal execution, measurement and consumer insights.


MEMPHIS, TN: Seeks Sixth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Cole" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Memphis filed an appeal from a court ruling relating
to the lawsuit titled Lakendus Cole, et al. v. City of Memphis, et
al., Case No. 2:13-cv-02117, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Lakendus
Cole, a Memphis police officer, was arrested in the early morning
hours of August 26, 2012, shortly after leaving a night club on
Beale Street in downtown Memphis, Tennessee.  After his arrest, he
brought claims individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, alleging that the City's routine practice of sweeping
Beale Street at 3 a.m. on weekend nights violated his
constitutional right to intra state travel.

The appellate case is captioned as Lakendus Cole, et al. v. City
of Memphis, et al., Case No. 17-5310, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees LAKENDUS COLE and LEON EDMOND, individually
and as representatives of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Bryan Matthew Meredith, Esq.
          Robert L. J. Spence, Jr., Esq.
          THE SPENCE LAW FIRM
          One Commerce Square, Suite 2200
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 312-9160

Defendant-Appellant CITY OF MEMPHIS is represented by:

          Leo Maurice Bearman, Jr., Esq.
          Zachary B. Busey, Esq.
          Lori H. Patterson, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0717
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  zbusey@bakerdonelson.com
                  lpatterson@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Barbaralette G. Davis, Esq.
          J. Michael Fletcher, Esq.
          Zayid Ahmad Saleem, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF MEMPHIS
          125 N. Main Street, Room 414
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 576-6614
          Facsimile: (901) 576-6524
          E-mail: barbaralette.davis@memphistn.gov
                  Zayid.Saleem@memphistn.gov


MIDLAND FUNDING: Walkabout Appeals W.D. Okla. Ruling to 10th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lori Walkabout filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Lori Walkabout v. Midland Funding, LLC, et
al., Case No. 5:14-CV-00939-M, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma - Oklahoma City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Lori
Walkabout filed the action individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated consumers, alleging that Midland Funding LLC
and Midland Credit Management, Inc. violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and that the Defendants' repeated
violations of the FDCPA entitles her to maintain a negligent per
se cause of action against them.

The appellate case is captioned as Lori Walkabout v. Midland
Funding, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-6062, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN]

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

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Minal Gahlot, Esq.
          M. Kathi Rawls, Esq.
          RAWLS LAW OFFICE PLC
          2404 S Broadway
          Moore, OK 73160
          Telephone: (405) 912-3225
          Facsimile: (405) 703-2769
          E-mail: minal@rawlslawoffice.com
                  mkr@rawlslawoffice.com

Defendants-Appellees MIDLAND FUNDING LLC and MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., are represented by:

          Jon Edward Brightmire, Esq.
          DOERNER, SAUNDERS, DANIEL & ANDERSON LLP
          2 West Second Street
          Williams Center Tower II, Suite 700
          Tulsa, OK 74103-3117
          Telephone: (918) 591-5253
          Facsimile: (918) 925-5258
          E-mail: jbrightmire@dsda.com


NATIONAL COMMERCIAL: Fitz Jackson to Pursue Banking Fees Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Jamaica Gleaner reports that the Member of Parliament for St
Catherine South, Fitz Jackson, says the decision of some banks to
suspend fees for dormant account will not stop him from going to
court to compel them to pay compensation.

Mr. Jackson is of the view that the banks only took the decision
after realising that their action breached the law.

In the past two weeks, the National Commercial Bank, First Global
Bank, Scotiabank Jamaica and First Caribbean International Bank
have announced that with immediate effect they would suspend
collecting fees on dormant accounts.

The MP is contending that the charging of fees on dormant accounts
contravenes provisions under the Banking Services Act.

In an interview on Power Talk on Power 106FM on March 27
Mr. Jackson said he's in consultation with his lawyers on the suit
and is to make a public announcement on the matter shortly.

He said the only way he would not take the banks court is if they
fully terminate collecting dormancy fees and refund depositors or
pay compensation.

Jackson, who has been advocating for stronger banking regulations
and consumer protection, has tabled a private members motion in
parliament seeking amendments to the Act.

Among other things, the legislation proposes regulating fees and
charges by deposit-taking institutions and minimum service
standards for customers.

The bill has received strong push back from the financial sector
with financial institutions arguing that the government should not
dictate fees in a free market economy.

Earlier in March, Finance Minister Audley Shaw told parliament
that there's an estimated 45 billion dollars in dormant accounts.


NEW YORK: AAA Elite Hits NYSDOH for Proposed Reimbursement Cuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
AAA Elite Medical Equipment Inc., Anfex, Inc., Atlantic Surgical
Supply Corp., Better Life Medical Supplies Inc., Borbas Pharmacy,
Inc., D.A. Surgical Supply, Inc., F&D Pharmacy Inc. D/B/A Medical
Arts Chemists & Surgicals, Global United Medical Supplies, Inc.,
Health Support Medical Supply, Inc., The King Medical Equipment
Co., Inc., Liberty Respiratory Care Inc. d/b/a Liberty Home
Healthcare, M.G. Medical Supplies Inc., N&L Medical Supply Inc.,
Nucare Pharmacy Inc. D/B/A Nucare Pharmacy & Surgical, Ocean
Surgical Supply Co., Rainbow Supply, Inc. d/b/a Rainbow Medical
Supply, Slon Medical Instrument Llc, Task Supply Corp., Welcare
Drugstore Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Amber Stone, Lynn Stone, Jane Doe, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
v. Howard A. Zucker, M.D., in his capacity as the Commissioner of
the New York State Department of Health, and the New York State
Department of Health, Case No. 7:17-cv-00064, (N.Y. Sup., March
30, 2017), seeks to rescind and annulling the March 6, 2017
Incontinence Supply Management Program Revised Fee Schedule
Changes for failure to comply with Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, costs and attorney's fees in
this action and such other and further relief.

Petitioners bring this proceeding to challenge the New York State
Department of Health's proposed decrease in the Medicaid
reimbursement rates to be paid to providers of certain
incontinence supplies, which was announced on March 6, 2017 and is
scheduled to take effect on April 3, 2017 and would shift more
than $51 million of taxpayer-funded Medicaid payments, for a total
of $255 million over the life of a five-year contract, to a
California-based wholesaler.

The proposed rate cuts by the Department of Health are
unsustainably low -- well below total cost for New York-based
community providers who provide such products -- and will
eviscerate the community-based network of providers of these
essential products, leaving a de facto mail-order option that
Respondent has found to be an improper and inadequate solution for
New York's Medicaid patients.

Plaintiffs are mostly providers of medical equipment, including
incontinence supplies. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NIANTIC: Seeks Dismissal of Landowners' Pokemon Go Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that the
game's developer urges a federal judge not to give landowners a
new right to refuse placement of virtual objects on property.

The hype around Pokemon Go, the augmented reality game encouraging
players to visit various real-life locations in order to discover,
capture and train digital creatures from the Pokemon universe, has
faded.  But litigation in its wake and a forthcoming decision by a
California federal judge has real potential to add new meaning to
a legal concept -- trespass -- that's been around at least since
medieval times.

Last summer, homeowners began filing nuisance suits against
Niantic, the company that developed the app game.  Jeffrey Marder,
who was disturbed by strangers holding up their mobile phones as
if they were taking pictures outside of his New Jersey home, is
one of the plaintiffs.  So are residents of the Villas of
Positano, an oceanfront condo in Hollywood, Florida.  According to
the complaint, they became aware of hundreds of non-residents
infiltrating their complex during the early hours of the morning,
behaving "like zombies, walking around bumping into things."

A curious phenomenon, no doubt, and also a possible game-changer
to one of the oldest of torts.

In reaction to the lawsuits, since consolidated, Niantic brought
an interesting argument on a motion to dismiss.

"Plaintiffs allege an invasion due to Niantic's 'designat[ion]' of
their properties as locations containing or near virtual Game
Items," stated the Pokemon Go developer.  "This 'designation' only
causes Game Items to display on players' phones . . ."

"Thus, Plaintiffs would never even see the allegedly intruding
Game Items unless they played the game at home," continued Niantic
through its lawyer, Jeffrey Gutkin at Cooley LLP. "This virtual
'invasion' does not 'meaningful[ly . . . occupy the[ir] land': it
is less invasive than noise, vibrations, dust, or a chemical
cloud, all insufficient for trespass."

In other words, the Pokemon creatures may seem like trespassers
themselves, but that's but an illusion.  As for the game-players,
Niantic stresses that it requires players to agree to its Terms
and Trainer Guidelines, which advises that no one should break any
law to capture a creature.

The plaintiffs aren't satisfied by this.  They are looking to
collect a ticket from the judge to proceed on the ground that
Niantic created an unreasonable interference with the use and
enjoyment of their land.  They object to Niantic's argument that
if there's any fault, it lies with the players themselves.

"Niantic placed Pokemon Gyms and Pokestops on private property
even though it knew or should have known that its actions would
result in a trespass and nuisance to the owners," argue
plaintiffs' attorneys at Pomerantz LLP.

The opposition brief, filed earlier in March, then continues with
a bold proposition.

"In the alternative, landowners should have a right to refuse the
placement of virtual objects on their property -- at least where
those virtual objects create any kind of incentive for any persons
to be in their physical proximity," states the brief.

On March 23, in advance of a hearing before judge James Donato,
Niantic attacked what it calls the "induced trespass" and "virtual
trespass" theories.

The game developer reiterates that a defendant can only get into
trouble for trespass by causing tangible objects -- such as
projectiles or a balloon -- to be on someone's property.

"This does not support Plaintiffs' theory that property owners
should be able to prevent app developers from displaying on-screen
virtual objects on the devices of third parties, at virtual
locations corresponding to being near the property owners'
properties," states the reply brief.  "If accepted, it would
threaten numerous online services.  For instance, creators of apps
that display on-screen markers (e.g., a walking tour app that
flags landmarks or an app that permits users to 'check-in'
virtually to a location to connect with friends) could be liable
for trespass.  There is no legal support for, and no need for, the
expansion of the law Plaintiffs advocate, so the Court should
reject their theory."


NIKIL INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over "Spam Vite" Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal judge has dismissed a class action complaint
against the San Francisco-based developer of the Down to Lunch
smartphone app, saying app users -- and not the software itself
-- are responsible for "spam-vite" promotional text messages sent
to other people's phones.

On April 22, 2016, attorney Ari J. Scharg, of the firm of Edelson
PC, of Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court on behalf
of plaintiff Matthew Warciak and a putative class of other
plaintiffs against app maker Nikil Inc., alleging the app's spike
in popularity was in part powered by improper marketing techniques
using potential users' mobile phones.

Down To Lunch aims to help friends -- particularly, high school
and college students -- suggest activities to other friends.  When
they agree on an activity, such as "lunch," "chill" or "study,"
among others, those wishing to participate click the button
labeled "I'm Down."

According to the complaint, Nikil used users' contact lists to
generate lists of numbers and "programmed the application to
automatically send text messages" that used app users' names to
make it appear a friend had "personally invited" those receiving
the text messages to download Down To Lunch "so you can both hang
out together," in a technique the complaint said is known as
"spam-viting."

On March 23 in Chicago, U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin
granted Nikil's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. He
noted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's prohibition on
automatic telephone dialing system to cellphone numbers for
anything other than emergencies or with the prior consent of the
called party.  For issues related to text messages, the Federal
Communications Commission issued an order clarifying how courts
should determine which party "initiated" a text.

According to Judge Durkin's opinion, when DTL users select the
"find friends" option, "the app seeks permission to access the
user's contacts," then tells users they can earn points -- good
toward T-shirts or in-app virtual "stickers" -- for getting
friends to join the app, offering "two large button options,
'Skip' and 'Invite' " for each contact.

Judge Durkin contrasted DTL with other software, noting that,
unlike other apps, "Down To Lunch does not 'automatically' send
text messages to every one of the user's contacts.  The Down to
Lunch user, not the app itself, decides whether any of the user's
contacts receive a text message generated by and through Down to
Lunch. Since the user decides whether the text gets sent, Nikil
cannot plausibly be said to have 'initiated' the text through Down
to Lunch.  Thus, Mr. Warciak has failed to state a claim that
Nikil violated the TCPA."

Several district courts, Judge Durkin wrote, used the FCC order as
justification for dismissing TCPA claims about mobile text
invitations at the pleading stage.  Judge Durkin said
Mr. Warciak's argument is not helped by his reliance on a ruling
in his favor on another pending action, a separate class action
lawsuit he and the Edelson firm also brought against the makers of
the After School app, which allows students attending the same
high school to anonymously share messages.  On Dec. 20, U.S.
District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly denied a motion from One Inc.,
maker of the After School app, to dismiss Mr. Warciak's complaint
in that case.

Judge Durkin noted the differences in the two cases. Quoting
Kennelly, Judge Durkin said the After School app "never indicates
to users that they are sending invitations," while Mr. Warciak in
his own complaint acknowledges DTL invitations are initiated by
users who are aware they will generate texts to their contacts.
Legally, Nikil is not the "initiator" of the messages, per Judge
Durkin, undercutting Mr. Warciak's ability to allege a TCPA
violation.

Judge Durkin dismissed Mr. Warciak's complaint without prejudice,
granting him until April 21 to file a motion for leave to amend.

Nikil was represented in the action by attorneys with the firms of
Fenwick & West LLP, of Seattle and Mountain View, Calif., and of
Mandell Menkes LLC, of Chicago.


NIMBLE STORAGE: Faces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that on March 24, David Ettel filed a putative
securities class action complaint in U.S. District court against
the company and individual members of the board.

Mr. Ettel's complaint asserts that the company and certain
directors violated sections 14(e), 14(d)(4), and 20(a) of exchange
act.


OVASCIENCE INC: Lifshitz & Miller Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lifshitz & Miller, a securities class action law firm focused on
representing shareholders nationwide, on March 28 disclosed that
on March 24, 2017, Lifshitz & Miller filed a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of
OvaScience, Inc. (OVAS) ("OvaScience" or the "Company") between
January 8, 2015 and March 26, 2015 (the "Class Period").  The
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Lifshitz & Miller.  If you are an OvaScience investor, and would
like additional information about our investigation and complaint,
please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua
Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516) 493-9780 or e-mail at
info@jlclasslaw.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

The complaint alleges that defendants caused the Company to issue
false and misleading statements and/or fail to disclose, among
other things, that: (1) the science behind AUGMENT had not been
scientifically validated; (2) the Company was unable to achieve
the purported success rates it claimed; (3) the reasons why the
Company moved its studies outside of the United States; and (4)
that at all relevant times, the Company's profitability and
prospects were false and misleading.

Investors have 60 days from March 28 to file a motion, with the
court, for appointment as a lead plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Lifshitz & Miller represents investors in the prosecution of
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation in
state and federal courts across the country.


PIXARBIO CORP: Securities Suit in Massachusetts Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pixarbio Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2017, that the
Company continues to face a class action lawsuit in Massachusetts
for violation of federal securities law.

The Company said: "On February 3, 2017, PixarBio Corporation (the
"Company") received a copy of a federal securities class action
against the Company and Francis Reynolds ("Mr. Reynolds") filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
for violations of federal securities law."

The class action complaint alleges among other claims that the
Company and Mr. Reynolds allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by (i) allegedly employing devices, schemes
and artifices to defraud, (ii) allegedly making false and/or
misleading statements and (iii) allegedly engaging in acts,
practices and a course of business which operated as a fraud and
deceit upon those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages,
interest and attorneys' fees.

Pixarbio Corporation is a specialty pharmaceutical/biotechnology
company focused on preclinical and commercial development of novel
neurological drug delivery systems for post-operative pain.


PPL CORP: Dismissed from Cane Run Environmental Claims Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The PPL Corporation and subsidiaries said in a Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that PPL has
been dismissed as Defendant in a class action lawsuit alleging
Cane Run environmental claims.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky alleging violations of the Clean Air Act and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.  In addition, these
plaintiffs assert common law claims of nuisance, trespass and
negligence.

These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and civil penalties, plus
costs and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory violations.
Under the common law claims, these plaintiffs seek monetary
compensation and punitive damages for property damage and
diminished property values for a class consisting of residents
within four miles of the Cane Run plant. In their individual
capacities, these plaintiffs sought compensation for alleged
adverse health effects.

In response to a motion to dismiss filed by PPL and LG&E, in July
2014, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' RCRA claims and all but
one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss their common law
tort claims. In November 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint removing the personal injury claims and removing certain
previously named plaintiffs.

In February 2017, the District Court issued an order dismissing
PPL as a defendant and dismissing the final federal claim against
LG&E, under the Clean Air Act, and directed the parties to submit
briefs regarding whether the court should continue to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction regarding the remaining state law-only
claims. PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this
matter. LG&E retired one coal-fired unit at the Cane Run plant in
March 2015 and the remaining two coal-fired units at the plant in
June 2015.

PPL Corporation, headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania, is a
utility holding company that was incorporated in 1994. PPL,
through its regulated utility subsidiaries, delivers electricity
to customers in the U.K., Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia and
Tennessee; delivers natural gas to customers in Kentucky; and
generates electricity from power plants in Kentucky.


REGENCY VILLAGE: "Ridley" Seeks Overtime, Sues Over Missed Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ridley, Stephanie Ketchum, Olga Guevara and Maria Fernandez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Regency Village Inc. and Penbar, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00974, (S.D. Tex., March 29, 2017), seeks
compensation for all unpaid hours worked in non-overtime weeks at
their then-applicable hourly rates, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and expenses of this action, pre-judgment and post judgment
interest and such other and further relief for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Regency Village Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation, a medical
facility located at 409 West Greene Street, Webster, TX 77598, is
jointly owned and operated by Regency Village Inc. and Penbar,
Inc. where Plaintiffs worked as hourly paid Licensed Vocational
Nurses, Registered Nurses and Certified Nurse Assistants. They
allegedly did not receive bona fide meal break periods, worked
off-the-clock but were not paid for such time.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Slobin, Esq.
      Ricardo J. Prieto
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      Email: tslobin@eeoc.net
             rprieto@eeoc.net


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Retirement Systems Appeal Class Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System, Waterford
Township Police & Fire Retirement System filed on March 1, 2017,
an appeal from a ruling in the case, Waterford Township Police &
Fire Retirement System v. Regional Management Corp. et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-03876 (S.D.N.Y.).  The appeal is pending in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain presides over the District Court case.

Regional Management Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that, "On May 30, 2014, a
securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court")
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors, executive officers, and stockholders (collectively, the
"Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act Claims") and sought unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the September
2013 and December 2013 secondary public offerings."

"On August 25, 2014, Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement
System and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System were
appointed as lead plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"). An
amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2014."

In addition to the 1933 Act Claims, the amended complaint also
added claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "1934 Act Claims") seeking unspecified compensatory damages
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between May 2, 2013 and October 30, 2014, inclusive.
On January 26, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety. In response, the Plaintiffs
sought and were granted leave to file an amended complaint.

"On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. Like the prior amended complaint, the second amended
complaint asserts 1933 Act Claims and 1934 Act Claims and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages. The Defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint was filed on April 28, 2015,
the Plaintiffs' opposition was filed on June 12, 2015, and the
Defendants' reply was filed on July 13, 2015."

"On March 30, 2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. On May 23,
2016, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third amended
complaint."

The Defendants' opposition brief was filed on June 9, 2016, and
the Plaintiffs' reply was filed on June 20, 2016. On January 27,
2017, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint and directed entry of final judgment in
favor of the Defendants. On January 30, 2017, the Court entered
final judgment in favor of the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs had until March 1, 2017 to appeal the Court's
decision. The Company believes that the claims against it are
without merit and will continue to defend against the litigation
vigorously.

Regional Management Corp. is a diversified consumer finance
company providing a broad array of loan products primarily to
customers with limited access to consumer credit from banks,
thrifts, credit card companies, and other traditional lenders.


SABRE CORP: Two Consumer Class Suits Still Pending in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company continues to
face class action lawsuits filed by two consumers alleging
misrepresentations concerning the description of fees received in
relation to facilitating hotel reservations.  The cases are still
pending in Texas courts.

According to the Complaint, "generally, the consumer claims relate
to whether Travelocity provided adequate notice to consumers
regarding the nature of our fees and the amount of taxes charged
or collected. One of these lawsuits is pending in Texas state
court, where the court is currently considering the plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class action; and the other is pending in
federal court, but has been stayed pending the outcome of the
Texas state court action. We believe the notice we provided was
appropriate and therefore have not accrued any losses related to
these cases."

The Company said, "Although we have prevailed in the majority of
these lawsuits and proceedings, there have been several adverse
judgments or decisions on the merits, some of which are subject to
appeal. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, our reserve was not
material for the potential resolution of issues identified related
to litigation involving hotel and car sales, occupancy or excise
taxes. We did not record material charges associated with these
cases during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015. Our
estimated liability is based on our current best estimate but the
ultimate resolution of these issues may be greater or less than
the amount recorded and, if greater, could adversely affect our
results of operations."

Sabre is a technology solutions provider to the global travel and
tourism industry.


SABRE CORP: Claims Remain Pending in S.D.N.Y. Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Sabre Corporation intends to vigorously defend against the
remaining claims in a class action lawsuit in New York against the
Company and two other global distribution systems, Sabre said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 17, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "In July 2015, a putative class action lawsuit
was filed against us and two other GDSs, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on behalf of a putative class
of consumers in various states, are generally alleging that the
GDSs conspired to negotiate for full content from the airlines,
resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in violation of
various federal and state laws."

"The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages in
connection with their state law claims, and they requested
injunctive relief in connection with their federal claim.

"In July 2016, the court granted, in part, our motion to dismiss
the lawsuit, finding that plaintiffs' state law claims are
preempted by federal law, thereby precluding their claims for
damages.

"The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claim seeking an
injunction under federal antitrust law. The plaintiffs may appeal
the court's dismissal of their state law claims upon a final
judgment. We believe that the claims associated with this case are
neither probable nor estimable and therefore have not accrued any
losses as of December 31, 2016. We may incur significant fees,
costs and expenses for as long as this litigation is ongoing. We
intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims."

Sabre is a technology solutions provider to the global travel and
tourism industry.


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Stock Inflation Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that shareholders in a
proposed class action asked a New York federal court on March 24
for preliminary approval of a $210 million settlement to end a
lawsuit accusing Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. of inflating stock
prices by knowingly misrepresenting the company's wholesale
inventory levels.

The motion asks U.S. District Judge Kimba M. Wood to certify the
class of people and entities that held Salix stock between
November 2013 and November 2014, and to approve as class
representatives PWCM Master Fund Ltd., Pentwater Equity
Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., Oceana Master Fund Ltd., Pentwater
Merger Arbitrage Master Fund Ltd., LMA SPC on behalf of the MAP98
Segregated Portfolio, and the City of Fort Lauderdale General
Employees' Retirement System.

The exact size of the class is unknown, but it's estimated to
comprise thousands of members.  Salix had 62 million shares of
common stock, with average daily trading volume in the millions of
shares per week during the class period.

The class representatives and their attorneys say the proposal
"represents an excellent result and is in the best interests of
the settlement class," which they allege was hurt by the
gastrointestinal drug company's misrepresentations.

"The proposed $210 million settlement represents a substantial
percentage of the maximum damages that lead plaintiff reasonably
believed could be established at trial," The March 24 motion said.
"This significant benefit to the settlement class must be
considered in the context of the serious risks that further
protracted litigation might lead to no recovery, or to a smaller
recovery, from defendants in this action."

The suit stems from two putative securities class actions filed in
New York federal court immediately after Salix's stock declined in
November 2014.  The suits were consolidated in March 2015, and the
resulting complaint alleged Salix violated the Securities and
Exchange Act when it made false statements about its inventory to
inflate its common stock during the class period.  When Salix
reported on Nov. 6, 2014, that it had as much as nine months'
worth of inventory on its top four products, the revelation of the
glut caused the stock price to tank, the complaint alleged.

The March 24 motion said the proposed settlement was the result of
extensive litigation, including 2.7 million pages of documents
proffered by Salix and 13 depositions.

The filing also argued that a trial would have been risky.  It was
difficult to prove the misleading statements amounted to an
intentional plot to defraud investors, the motion said, since the
errors were due to best estimates of inventory.  The motion also
argued that calculating damages would prove difficult, because it
would require breaking down how much of the stock price drop was
due to the alleged fraud and how much was a result of other
factors, like the company's pending acquirement by Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International Inc.

Attorneys for the class and representatives for Salix could not be
reached for comment on March 27.  An attorney for Salix declined
to comment.

The class is represented by Salvatore J. Graziano --
sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- John Rizio-Hamilton -- johnr@blbglaw.com
-- and Katherine M. Sinderson -- katherinem@blbglaw.com --of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Samuel H. Rudman,
David Rosenfeld and Mark S. Reich of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

Salix is represented by Charles Alan Gilman -- cgilman@cahill.com
-- Adam Shawn Mintz -- amintz@cahill.com -- Bradley Joseph Bondi -
- BBondi@Cahill.com -- and Sarah Penny Windle --
pwindle@cahill.com -- of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP.

The case is In Re Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd., case number 1:14-cv-
08925, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.


SANTA FE, NM: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Moya" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mariano Moya and Lonnie Petry filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Moya, et al. v. Garcia, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-CV-01022-WJ-KBM, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico - Albuquerque.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Moya, et al. v. Garcia, et al.,
Case No. 17-2037, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants LONNIE PETRY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, and MARIANO MOYA are represented
by:

          A. Nathaniel Chakeres, Esq.
          Todd A. Coberly, Esq.
          COBERLY & MARTINEZ LLLP
          1322 Paseo de Peralta
          Santa Fe, NM 87501
          Telephone: (505) 306-4019
          Facsimile: (505) 629-1560
          E-mail: nat@coberlymartinez.com
                  todd@coberlymartinez.com

Defendants-Appellees ROBERT GARCIA, Santa Fe County Sheriff; MARK
CALDWELL, Warden of Santa Fe County Adult Correctional Facility;
MARK GALLEGOS, former Warden Santa Fe County Adult Correctional
Facility, in their individual capacities; and BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF SANTA FE COUNTY are represented by:

          Brandon Huss, Esq.
          Dennis K. Wallin, Esq.
          WALLIN, HUSS & MENDEZ, LLC
          P.O. Box 696
          Moriarty, NM 87035
          Telephone: (505) 832-6363
          Facsimile: (505) 814-5805
          E-mail: bh@whmlawfirm.com
                  dkw@whmlawfirm.com


SMART & FINAL STORES: "Dubon" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Barahona Dubon, an individual, on her own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Smart &
Final Stores, Inc., a California corporation and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC655983, (Cal. Super., March 30,
2017), seeks nominal damages, equitable relief, declaratory
relief, restitution of all monies due to Plaintiff and members of
the putative class, and disgorgement of profits from unlawful
business practices, penalties as permitted by the California Labor
Code, interest as permitted by statute, costs of suit and expenses
incurred, attorney's fees and all such other and further relief.

Plaintiff worked at the Smart and Final in Los Angeles,
California. Smart and Final, is a chain of warehouse-style food
and supply stores based in Commerce, California where Plaintiff
was employed as a Key Carrier/Closing Shift Manager. Dubon claims
to be denied meal and rest breaks, wage statements, minimum wages,
and wages at time of termination. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
      BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
      2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (805)212-5124
      Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
      E-Mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
              kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


SPECTRUM PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Junk Faxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
Metairie company alleges a New Jersey corporation sent it junk
faxes and has filed a class-action suit.

Casso's Wellness Store & Gym LLC filed a complaint on March 15 in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
against Spectrum Pharmacy Products Inc. alleging that the
pharmaceutical company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that as a result
of defendant's unsolicited faxes, plaintiff suffered disruption,
annoyance and costs. The plaintiff holds Spectrum Pharmacy
Products Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly
willfully sent unsolicited facsimile advertisement and failed to
provide the mandatory opt-out notice requirements.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order
certifying this action as a class action, appointing plaintiff as
class representative and its counsel as class counsel, statutory
damages of $500 for each violation of the Act, award for
litigation costs and such other relief. It is represented by
George B. Recile, Preston L. Hayes, Ryan P. Monsour, Matthew A.
Sherman and Patrick R. Follette of Chehardy, Sherman, Williams,
Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes LLP in Metairie.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:17-cv-02161


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: May 2017 Trial in Boeing Indemnification Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that trial has
been set for May 2017 in a lawsuit filed by The Boeing Co.

The Company said: "On December 5, 2014, Boeing filed a complaint
in Delaware Superior Court, Complex Commercial Litigation
Division, entitled The Boeing Co. v. Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., No.
N14C-12-055 (EMD). Boeing seeks indemnification from Spirit for
(a) damages assessed against Boeing in International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Workers of America v.
Boeing Co., AAA Case No. 54 300 00795 07 (the "UAW Arbitration"),
which was brought on behalf of certain former Boeing employees in
Tulsa and McAlester, Oklahoma, and (b) claims that Boeing settled
in Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace v.
Boeing Co., Nos. 05-1251-MLB, 07-1043-MLB (D. Kan.) (the "Harkness
Class Action"). Spirit Holdings, Spirit and certain Spirit
retirement plan entities were parties to the Harkness Class
Action, but all claims against the Spirit entities were
subsequently dismissed.

Boeing's Complaint asserts that the damages assessed against
Boeing in the UAW Arbitration and the claims settled by Boeing in
the Harkness Class Action are liabilities that Spirit assumed
under an Asset Purchase Agreement between Boeing and Spirit, dated
February 22, 2005 (the "APA")."

Boeing asserts claims for breach of contract and declaratory
judgment regarding its indemnification rights under the APA.
Boeing estimates the UAW Arbitration decision to have a net
present value of $39.0 million. In regard to the Harkness Class
Action, the district court approved a settlement in an amount of
$90.0 million.

In addition to the amounts related to the UAW Arbitration and
Harkness Class Action, Boeing seeks indemnification for more than
$10.0 million in attorneys' fees it alleges it expended to defend
the UAW Arbitration and Harkness Class Action, as well as for the
reasonable fees, costs and expenses Boeing expends litigating the
case against Spirit.  Following a motion to dismiss (which was
denied by Court Order dated August 14, 2015), Spirit answered
Boeing's Complaint and asserted a Counterclaim against Boeing, on
the ground that the liabilities at issue were Boeing's
responsibility under the APA.

Spirit's Counterclaim alleges breach of contract and seeks a
declaratory judgment regarding Spirit's right to indemnification
from Boeing under the APA. Spirit's Counterclaim seeks to recover
the amounts that Spirit spent litigating the Harkness Class
Action, responding to Boeing's indemnification demands concerning
the Harkness Class Action and UAW Arbitration, and also litigating
the current lawsuit against Boeing.

"On December 20, 2016, Boeing and Spirit moved for summary
judgment. Summary judgment briefing will be completed on February
9, 2017. A decision on the summary judgment motions is not
expected until the second quarter of 2017. Trial is presently
scheduled for May 2017. Spirit intends to defend vigorously
against the allegations in this lawsuit."

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings is an independent non-OEM aircraft
parts designer and manufacturer of commercial aerostructures; and
an independent supplier of aerostructures to both Boeing and
Airbus.


STRAIGHT PATH: To Settle "Zacharia" Shareholder Suit for $9.45MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Straight Path Communications Inc. entered into an agreement to
settle a purported shareholder lawsuit for $9.45 million, the
Company disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 8, 2017.

On March 7, 2017, the Company and lead plaintiff in Zacharia v.
Straight Path Communications Inc. et al., No. 2:15-cv-08051-JMV-MF
(D.N.J.), entered into a binding memorandum of understanding to
settle the putative shareholder class action and dismiss the
claims that were filed against the Defendants in that action. The
agreed terms provide for a $2.25 million initial payment (the
"Initial Payment") and a $7.2 million additional payment (the
"Additional Payment"). The Initial Payment will be paid into an
escrow account within 15 days following preliminary court approval
of the settlement, and will be fully covered by insurance policies
maintained by the Company.

The Additional Payment will be paid within 60 days after the
closing of a transaction to sell the Company's spectrum licenses
as specified in the Consent Decree with the Federal Communications
Commission dated January 11, 2017 (the "Consent Decree"), or, in
the event that the Company pays the non-transfer penalty specified
in the Consent Decree, within 60 days after that payment is paid.

In any event, the Additional Payment will be payable no later than
December 31, 2018. The settlement remains subject to entering in a
definitive agreement and court approval.

Straight Path Communications Inc. is a communications asset
company.  The Company owns, via intermediate wholly-owned
entities, 100% of Straight Path Spectrum, Inc. and 100% of
Straight Path Ventures, LLC, and it owns 84.5% of Straight Path IP
Group, Inc.


SUNRUN INC: California Court Tosses Shareholder Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted Sunrun Inc.'s motion to dismiss, with prejudice, purported
shareholder class action lawsuits, according to the Company's
March 8, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On April 13, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Pytel v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538215, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the
Company, certain of the Company's directors and officers, the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and certain
other defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 by making false or misleading statements in connection
with the Company's August 5, 2015 initial public offering
regarding the continuation of net metering programs. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who acquired the
Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the initial public
offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, including
interest, rescission or rescissory damages, an award of reasonable
costs and attorneys' fees, and any equitable or injunctive relief
deemed appropriate by the court.

On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Mancy v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538303, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.

On April 22, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Brown et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538311, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.

On April 29, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Baker et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538419, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.

On May 6, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Greenberg v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case 3:16-cv-02480, was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On May 10, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Nunez v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538593, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.

On June 10, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Steinberg v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 539064, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.

The Mancy, Brown, Baker, Greenberg, Nunez and Steinberg complaints
are substantially similar to the Pytel complaint, and seek similar
relief against similar defendants on behalf of the same purported
class.

On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Cohen, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538304, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo,
against the Company, certain of the Company's directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
making false or misleading statements in connection with an August
5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the Company's business
practices and its dependence on complex financial instruments. The
Cohen plaintiffs seek to represent the same class and seek similar
relief as the plaintiffs in the Pytel, Mancy, Brown, Greenberg,
Nunez, Steinberg and Baker actions.

On September 26, 2016, the Baker, Brown, Cohen, Mancy, Nunez,
Pytel and Steinberg actions were consolidated.

On February 9, 2017, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, with prejudice, with respect to these actions.

Sunrun Inc. provides clean, solar energy to homeowners at a
significant savings to traditional utility energy.


TARGET CORP: Awaits Order on Bid to Toss Consolidated Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation is awaiting decision on its motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint in the securities litigation pending in
Minnesota, according to the Company's March 8, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended January 28, 2017.

On May 17, 2016 and May 24, 2016, Target Corporation and certain
present and former officers were named as defendants in two
purported federal securities law class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The actions
subsequently were consolidated under the caption In re: Target
Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 0:16-cv-01315-JNE-BRT.
The plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
(Consolidated Complaint) on November 14, 2016, alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to certain prior
disclosures of Target about its expansion of retail operations
into Canada (Canada Disclosure). Target, its former chief
executive officer, its present chief operating officer, and the
former president of Target Canada are named as defendants in the
Consolidated Complaint. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class
consisting of all purchasers of Target common stock between March
20, 2013 and August 4, 2014. The plaintiff seeks damages and other
relief, including attorneys' fees, based on allegations that the
defendants misled investors about the performance and prospects of
Target Canada and that such conduct affected the value of Target
common stock.

On February 10, 2017, Target and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. That motion has not yet been
heard or decided. Target intends to vigorously defend this
consolidated action.

Target Corporation was incorporated in Minnesota in 1902.  The
Company offers its customers, referred to as "guests," everyday
essentials and fashionable, differentiated merchandise at
discounted prices.  The Company operates as a single segment
designed to enable guests to purchase products seamlessly in
stores or through its digital channels.


TARGET CORP: June 14 Hearing on Bid to Toss Amended ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation awaits ruling on its motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the consolidated lawsuit alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the
Company's March 8, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 28,
2017.

On July 12, 2016 and July 15, 2016, Target Corporation, the Plan
Investment Committee and Target's current chief operating officer
were named as defendants in two purported Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The
actions subsequently were consolidated under the caption In re:
Target Corporation ERISA Litigation, Case No. 0:16-cv-02400-JNE-
BRT. The plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint
(Amended Complaint) on December 14, 2016, alleging violations of
Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA relating to the Canada Disclosure.
Target, the Plan Investment Committee, and seven present or former
officers are named as defendants in the Amended Complaint. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all persons who
were participants in or beneficiaries of the Target Corporation
401(k) Plan or the Target Corporation Ventures 401(k) Plan
(collectively, the Plans) at any time between February 27, 2013
and May 19, 2014 and whose Plan accounts included investments in
Target stock. The plaintiffs seek damages, an injunction and other
unspecified equitable relief, and attorneys' fees, expenses, and
costs, based on allegations that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to take action to prevent Plan
participants from continuing to purchase Target stock during the
class period at prices that allegedly were artificially inflated.

On February 24, 2017, Target and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint. That motion has not yet been heard
or decided. Target intends to vigorously defend this consolidated
action.

A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is set for June 14, 2017 11:00
a.m. in Courtroom 12W (MPLS) before Judge Joan N. Ericksen.

Target Corporation was incorporated in Minnesota in 1902.  The
Company offers its customers, referred to as "guests," everyday
essentials and fashionable, differentiated merchandise at
discounted prices.  The Company operates as a single segment
designed to enable guests to purchase products seamlessly in
stores or through its digital channels.


TEMPUR SEALY: Faces Class Action, May 23 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC on March 28 notified investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Tempur Sealy
International, Inc. ("Tempur Sealy" or the "Company") (TPX) and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
Tempur Sealy securities between July 28, 2016 and January 27,
2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/tpx.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Tempur Sealy is the world's largest bedding provider.  The company
develops, manufactures, and distributes mattresses, adjustable
bases, pillows and other sleep relaxation products.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) Mattress Firm Holding Corp. ("Mattress Firm"),
the Company's largest customer which accounted for approximately
25% of the Tempur Sealy's 2015 net sales, had been engaged in
active negotiations to be acquired and that any such acquisition
was reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect in Tempur
Sealy's 2016 third and fourth quarter operating results; (2)
Tempur Sealy was engaged in active discussions with Mattress Firm
concerning modifications to their long-term supply agreements; (3)
Mattress Firm had been seeking significant economic concessions
from Tempur Sealy during the Class Period; (4)  defendants lacked
a reasonable basis for the Company's positive statements
associated with Mattress Firm; and (5) consequently, defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about
Tempur Sealy's then-current business and future financial
prospects.

On January 27, 2017, Tempur Sealy revealed that it would end
business with Mattress Firm during the first quarter of 2017.
Following this news, Tempur Sealy stock dropped $20.19 per share
over a two-day period, or nearly 32%, to close at $43.00 per share
on January 31, 2017.

The complaint continues to allege that Tempur Sealy was driven to
engage in a conduct that allowed Company insiders to sell over
$8.2 million of Tempur Sealy stock at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Period.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/tpxor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you suffered a loss
in Tempur Sealy you have until May 23, 2017 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


TOPGOLF INTL: "Reyes" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Tip Credits
------------------------------------------------------------Pamela
Reyes, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Topgolf International, Inc. and Topgolf
Usa Spring Holdings LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00883, (N.D.
Tex., March 29, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, pre and post-judgment interest
and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Top Golf operates 30 golf-related entertainment facilities in the
United States. Reyes worked for TopGolf as a bay host from
approximately March of 2014 to December of 2016 at TopGolf's
Spring, Texas location located at 560 Spring Park Center Blvd.
Defendant is accused of taking a tip credit from its bay hosts and
refusing to pay overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
      John Neuman, Esq.
      SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      5612 Chaucer Drive
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (281) 885-8844
      Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
      Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
             JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


TRONC INC: Accrued Litigation Judgment Liability Up by $2-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
tronc, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 8, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 25, 2016, that it increased the accrued litigation
judgment liability and the seller indemnification asset by $2
million to reflect estimated interest accumulating on the judgment
in a consolidated class action lawsuit against a subsidiary.

On May 21, 2015, the Company completed the acquisition of MLIM,
LLC ("MLIM"), the indirect owner of The San Diego Union-Tribune
(f/k/a the U-T San Diego) and nine community weeklies and related
digital properties in San Diego County, California, pursuant to
the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement (the "Agreement"),
dated May 7, 2015, among the Company, MLIM Holdings, LLC, the Papa
Doug Trust under agreement dated January 11, 2010, Douglas F.
Manchester and Douglas W. Manchester, and MLIM, as amended
effective May 21, 2015. As of the closing of the transaction, the
Company acquired 100% of the equity interests in MLIM.

The stated purchase price was $85 million, consisting of $73
million in cash, subject to a working capital adjustment, and $12
million in tronc common stock. The Company financed the $73
million cash portion of the purchase price, less a $4.6 million
working capital adjustment, with a combination of cash-on-hand and
funds available under the Company's existing Senior ABL Facility,
as well as the net proceeds of the term loan increase.

Prior to the closing of the acquisition, certain assets and
liabilities of MLIM related to the business and the operation of
The San Diego Union-Tribune, including real property used by the
business, were distributed to the seller or its affiliates. Upon
the close of the acquisition, MLIM became a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, and retained certain liabilities,
including certain legal matters and its existing pension
obligations, and entered into a lease to use certain real property
from the seller.

The seller has provided the Company a full indemnity with respect
to certain legal matters which were at various states of
adjudication at the date of the acquisition. Inasmuch as such
judgments represent a liability of the acquired entity which is
subject to indemnification, the initial purchase price allocation
reflects the assignment of $11.2 million to both the litigation
judgment liability and the seller indemnification asset and is
reflected in the Consolidated Balance Sheet in current assets,
other long-term assets, current liabilities and other obligations
for the year ended December 27, 2015.

In one such matter, a consolidated class action against a
predecessor entity to MLIM which asserts various claims on behalf
of home delivery newspaper carriers alleged to have been
misclassified as independent contractors, the plaintiffs have been
granted a judgment comprised of unreimbursed business expenses,
interest and attorney's fees totaling approximately $10 million.
During the year ended December 25, 2016, the Company increased the
accrued litigation judgment liability and the seller
indemnification asset by $2.0 million to reflect estimated
interest accumulating on the judgment.

tronc, Inc., formerly Tribune Publishing Company, was formed as a
Delaware corporation on November 21, 2013. tronc is a media
company rooted in award-winning journalism, which operates over
150 titles in nine of the nation's largest markets.  The Company's
diverse portfolio of iconic news and information brands are in
markets including Los Angeles and San Diego, Ca.; Chicago, Il.;
Fort Lauderdale and Orlando, Fl.; Baltimore, Md.; Hartford, Ct.;
Allentown, Pa.; and Newport News, Va. tronc also offers an array
of customized marketing solutions, and publishes a number of niche
products, including Hoy and El Sentinel, making tronc the
country's largest Spanish-language publisher.


TURTLE BAY: "Markson" Sues Over Unauthorized SMS Ads
----------------------------------------------------
Aubrey Markson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Turtle Bay Tavern Corp and 978 Second Pub
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02272 (S.D. N.Y., March 29,
2017), seeks actual and statutory damages, an injunction requiring
Defendants to cease all wireless spam activities including
unsolicited telephone calling activities, to honor stop requests,
and to provide a domestic number for opting out.  The suit also
seeks reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such further and
other relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Turtle Bay manages the Turtle Bay Tavern located at 987 2nd Ave,
New York, NY, 10022. 978 Second Pub manages the Irish Exit located
at 978 Second Avenue, New York, New York, 10022. Both Defendants
have been utilizing SMS marketing solutions. Markson complains of
receiving unsolicited SMS ads from them despite being on the
national "do not call" registry and having opted out of their text
messages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      5 Penn Plaza, 23rd floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      Email: Law@stefancoleman.com


TURTLE BEACH: Appeal Remains Pending in Nevada Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation's appeal from the denial of its motion to
dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit remains pending in
Nevada Supreme Court, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. and the Company (f/k/a
Parametric) announced that they had entered into the Merger
Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an approximately
80% ownership interest and existing shareholders would maintain an
approximately 20% ownership interest in the combined company.
Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class
action lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the
Merger. The plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the
Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders by agreeing to a Merger that allegedly
undervalued the Company. VTBH and the Company were named as
defendants in these lawsuits under the theory that they had aided
and abetted the Company's Board of Directors in allegedly
violating their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in both cases
sought a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin closing of the
Merger, which by agreement was heard by the Nevada court with the
California plaintiffs invited to participate.

On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada cases denied the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the
closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and
sought monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger.
The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without
prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was
granted.

Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations as
prior complaints and sought monetary damages. On June 20, 2014,
VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the action, but that motion
was denied on August 28, 2014. That denial is currently under
review by the Nevada Supreme Court, which held a hearing on the
Company's petition for review on September 1, 2015. After the
hearing, the Nevada Supreme Court requested a supplemental
briefing, which the parties completed on October 13, 2015. The
Nevada Supreme Court also invited the Business Law Section of the
Nevada State Bar to submit an amicus brief by December 3, 2015 and
briefing was completed on February 23, 2016.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims against it are
without merit.

Turtle Beach Corporation, headquartered in San Diego, California
and incorporated in the state of Nevada in 2010, is a premier
audio technology company with expertise and experience in
developing, commercializing and marketing innovative products
across a range of large addressable markets under the Turtle
Beach(R) and HyperSound(R) brands. Turtle Beach is a worldwide
leading provider of feature-rich headset solutions for use across
multiple platforms, including video game and entertainment
consoles, handheld consoles, personal computers, tablets and
mobile devices.


TYSON FOODS: Bids to Dismiss Broiler Chicken Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that in the case, In re
Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, the company had filed
motions to dismiss.

The Company said: "On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc.,
acting on behalf of itself and a putative class of direct
purchasers of poultry products, filed a class action complaint
against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as
several other poultry processing companies, in the Northern
District of Illinois. Subsequent to the filing of this initial
complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of
putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois."

"The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes,
into actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. These three actions
are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. Several
amended and consolidated complaints have been filed on behalf of
each putative class. The currently operative complaints allege,
among other things, that beginning in January 2008 the defendants
conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the
price of broiler chickens in violation of United States antitrust
laws.

"The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state
unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust
enrichment common laws. The complaints also allege that defendants
"manipulated and artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price
index, the Georgia Dock."  It is further alleged that the
defendants concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the
members of the putative classes.

"The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief,
pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on
behalf of the putative classes. We have filed motions to dismiss
these actions."

Tyson Foods also disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report that, "On
October 17, 2016, William Huser, acting on behalf of himself and a
putative class of persons who purchased shares of Tyson Foods'
stock between November 23, 2015, and October 7, 2016, filed a
class action complaint against Tyson Foods, Inc., Donnie Smith and
Dennis Leatherby in the Central District of California."

"The complaint alleged, among other things, that our periodic
filings contained materially false and misleading statements by
failing to disclose that the Company has colluded with other
producers to manipulate the supply of broiler chickens in order to
keep supply artificially low, as alleged in In re Broiler Chicken
Antitrust Litigation, stating that its industry is competitive,
and failing to disclose that we lacked effective internal control
over financial reporting."

"The complaint sought damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees. Subsequent to the filing of this
initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims were
filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern
District of New York, the Western District of Arkansas, and the
Southern District of Ohio."

"Each of those cases have now been transferred to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas and
consolidated, and lead plaintiffs have been appointed."

"The lead plaintiffs have not yet filed a consolidated complaint."

                           *     *     *

Jack Newsham, writing for Law360, reported in February that Tyson
Foods Inc. told shareholders that the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission has hit it with a subpoena over allegations raised in
class action lawsuits that the company conspired with other
producers of broiler chickens to limit production and goose their
profits.

Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, reported in December that an
Illinois federal judge named Hagens Berman Sobeol Shapiro LLP as
interim class counsel for food distributors in a proposed class
action alleging that Tyson Foods, Pilgrim's Pride and other
poultry producers conspired to fix chicken prices.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin said he appointed Seattle-based
Hagens Berman to represent the end-purchaser consumer plaintiffs
in the case, because of the national law firm's "aggressive and
independent advocacy."

Other defendants in the lawsuits are Koch Foods, Inc., Tyson
Foods, Inc., Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, Perdue Farms, Inc.,
Sanderson Farms, Inc., Wayne Farms, LLC, Mountaire Farms, Inc.,
Peco Foods, Inc., Foster Farms, LLC, House of Raeford Farms, Inc.,
Simmons Foods, Inc., Fieldale Farms Corporation, George's, Inc.,
or O.K. Foods, Inc.

Founded in 1935, Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries is one of
the world's largest food companies with brands such as Tyson(R),
Jimmy Dean(R), Hillshire Farm(R), Sara Lee(R), Ball Park(R),
Wright(R), Aidells(R) and State Fair(R).  Tyson Foods is a
recognized market leader in chicken, beef and pork as well as
prepared foods, including bacon, breakfast sausage, turkey,
lunchmeat, hot dogs, pizza crusts and toppings, tortillas and
desserts.


UNITED STATES: Horvath Appeals Ruling to Federal Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Horvath filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Horvath v. US, Case No. 1:16-cv-00688-LKG (Fed. Cl.).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed against the U.S. government in the United States Court
of Federal Claims on behalf of the classes of federal Secret
Service agents similarly situated to the Plaintiff.  The nature of
suit is stated as "Civilian Pay - Overtime Compensation."

The appellate case is captioned as Horvath v. US, Case No. 17-
1801, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing Statement is due on April 17, 2017; and

   -- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on May 15, 2017.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL HORVATH, individually, and on behalf
of the classes of federal Secret Service agents similarly situated
to him, is represented by:

          David James Vendler, Esq.
          MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP
          1055 W Seventh Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          1055 W. 7th Street, 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 891 9100
          Facsimile: (213) 488 1178
          E-mail: dvendler@mpplaw.com

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Sosun Bae, Esq.
          TRIAL ATTORNEY
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          PO Box 480
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 305-7568
          E-mail: sosun.bae@usdoj.gov


UNITED STATES: Insurers Have Until May 12 to Join Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inside Health Policy reports that insurers owed money under the
Affordable Care Act's risk corridor program in 2014 or 2015 have
until May 12 to join a class action suit against the federal
government certified by the U.S. Court of Claims, according to a
notice from the court-appointed law firm. It is unclear how many
plans owed money will join the suit, but a former executive of one
of the ACA's health care co-ops said all plans should consider
doing so.


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Parshall" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard G Andrews entered an Order granting a stipulation to
dismiss the case captioned, Parshall v. Universal American Corp.
et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00077 (D. Del.).

The Dismissal Order was entered on Feb. 15, terminating the case.

In a press statement dated Feb. 16, Universal American Corp.
(NYSE:UAM) announced that during a special stockholder meeting
held earlier that day, its stockholders voted to approve the
adoption of the previously announced merger agreement, dated as of
November 17, 2016, providing for the acquisition of Universal
American by WellCare Health Plans, Inc.

In its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 10, 2017, Universal American Corp. made
supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy statement on
Schedule 14A filed with the SEC by UAM on January 17, 2017 to
provide additional information relating to the Agreement and Plan
of Merger (as it may be amended from time to time, the "Merger
Agreement"), dated as of November 17, 2016, by and between
WellCare Health Plans, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("WellCare"),
Wind Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of WellCare ("Merger Sub"), and UAM,
pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into UAM (the
"Merger") with UAM surviving as an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of WellCare.

Following the filing of the Proxy Statement with the SEC, a
putative class action lawsuit relating to the Merger was filed on
January 27, 2017 in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of a putative class of UAM's public
stockholders against UAM and the members of the UAM Board of
Directors pursuant to Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934:  Paul Parshall v. Universal American Corp,
et al., C.A. No. 1:17-cv-00077 (D. Del.) (the "Lawsuit").  The
complaint in the Lawsuit generally alleges that the Proxy
Statement omitted certain material information and seeks, among
other remedies, to enjoin the Merger.

UAM believes that the claims asserted in the Lawsuit are without
merit.  However, in order to alleviate the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide additional
information to its stockholders, UAM and the other named
defendants in the Lawsuit signed a memorandum of understanding to
settle Plaintiff's individual claims, pursuant to which UAM is
providing the additional disclosures set forth below.

To the extent that information set forth below differs from
information contained in the Proxy Statement, the information set
forth below supersedes such information contained in the Proxy
Statement.  Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the
contrary, UAM specifically denies all allegations in the Lawsuit
that any additional disclosure was or is required.

These supplemental disclosures will not affect the merger
consideration to be paid to stockholders of UAM in connection with
the Merger or the timing of the special meeting of UAM
stockholders scheduled for February 16, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. local
time at UAM's offices, located at UAM's headquarters at 44 South
Broadway, White Plains, New York 10601.

Universal American Corp. is a Delaware corporation that provides
health benefits to individuals covered by Medicare.


UPA LLC: "Land" Sues Over Unattended Building Defects
-----------------------------------------------------
Lydia Land, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. UPA, LLC, Evergreen Towers I, LP, Evergreen Towers
11 LP, Cullen Davis, d/b/a Cullen J. Davis Development LLC and
Near North Development Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2017-CH-
04646 (Ill. Cir., March 30, 2017), seeks corrective measures to
leased premises, costs, interest on the judgment, reasonable
attorney's fees and any other relief for violation of the Chicago
Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance Municipal Code.

UPA is the property management company for the buildings located
at 1333 N. Cleveland and/or 1334 N. Cleveland in Chicago,
Illinois. Plaintiff is a tenant and complains of problems with the
renovation and remodeling of the complex, malfunctioning or
inoperative toilets which were not repaired, damaged and/or
defective windows and unwarranted evictions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Berton N. Ring, Esq.
      Stuart M. Clarke, Esq.
      BERTON N. RING, P.C.
      123 West Madison Street, 15th Floor
      Chicago, 1L 60602
      Tel: (312) 781-0290


VALSPAR CORP: To Pay $140K for Fees & Costs in "Mitsopoulos" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Valspar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2017, for the
quarter period ended January 27, 2017, that it has agreed to pay,
and will pay, fees and expenses of $140,000 pertaining to the
action initiated by Tom Mitsopoulos.

On March 19, 2016, Valspar entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the Merger Agreement) with The Sherwin-Williams Company
(Sherwin-Williams) and Viking Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Sherwin-Williams (Merger Sub).  The Merger Agreement
provides that, among other things, Merger Sub will be merged with
and into Valspar (the Merger), with Valspar surviving the Merger
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sherwin-Williams.

On May 24, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit challenging the
Merger was filed that named Valspar and its board of directors as
defendants. The complaint, captioned Mitsopoulos v. Valspar (Case
No. 12373), was filed on May 24, 2016 in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware by a purported stockholder of Valspar. The
lawsuit sought to enjoin the transaction and alleged, among other
things, that the members of the Valspar board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material
information relating to the transaction, including with respect to
the financial analyses of Valspar's financial advisors and
financial projections prepared by Valspar management.

On June 17, 2016, Valspar filed a Current Report on Form 8-K
disclosing certain additional information relating to the proposed
Merger in response to allegations made in the above lawsuit. In
filing the Form 8-K, Valspar denied the allegations of the lawsuit
and the need for any supplemental disclosure, and stated it
believed the definitive proxy statement filed in connection with
the Merger disclosed all material information. However, Valspar
disclosed the additional information solely for the purpose of
avoiding the expense and burden of litigation.

On June 22, 2016, the Court of Chancery entered an order
dismissing the Delaware Action with prejudice as to plaintiff Tom
Mitsopoulos and without prejudice as to all other members of the
putative class. Pursuant to the order, the Court of Chancery
retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining
plaintiff Tom Mitsopoulos' application for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses.

Plaintiff's counsel in the Action filed a Petition for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in view of the supplemental
disclosures contained in the June 17, 2016 Form 8-K. After
negotiations, to eliminate any risk associated with plaintiff Tom
Mitsopoulos' fee petition, Valspar has agreed to pay, and will
pay, fees and expenses of $140,000 pertaining to the Action. This
fee has not been approved or ruled upon by the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware.

The Valspar Corporation is a global leader in the paints and
coatings industry.  The Company develops, manufactures and
distributes a broad range of coatings, paints and related
products.


WEST COAST TRUCKING: "Lazo" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Laurence Lazo and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. West Coast Trucking Corp., Manuel Quintero,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21165 (S.D. Fla., March 29, 2017),
seeks to recover regular and overtime wages and an additional and
equal amount as liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest and
post-judgment interest, equitable and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs of the action and such other injunctive
and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a warehouseman from
December 1, 2011 through January 2017. Lazo claims to have worked
an average of 60 hours a week but was never paid the extra half
time rate for hours worked over 40 hours in a week. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Consumer Claims Process to Be Completed This Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation is proceeding through the administrative
consumer claims process to implement the terms of a class action
settlement, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "We have vigorously defended against numerous
lawsuits pending in the United States relating to certain of our
front load washing machines.  In 2016, we reached final agreement
on a settlement that will resolve all such class action lawsuits
(except for attorneys fees in an immaterial case) and received
court approval. We are proceeding through the administrative
consumer claims process to implement the terms of the settlement,
which will be complete in 2017.

"In addition, we are currently vigorously defending a number of
other lawsuits in federal and state courts in the United States
related to the manufacturing and sale of our products which
include class action allegations, and have and may become involved
in similar actions in other jurisdictions. These lawsuits allege
claims which include negligence, breach of contract, breach of
warranty, product liability and safety claims, false advertising,
fraud, and violation of federal and state regulations, including
consumer protection laws.

"In general, we do not have insurance coverage for class action
lawsuits.

"We are also involved in various other legal actions in the United
States and other jurisdictions around the world arising in the
normal course of business, for which insurance coverage may or may
not be available depending on the nature of the action. We dispute
the merits of these suits and actions, and intend to vigorously
defend them." The Company said.

Management believes, based upon its current knowledge, after
taking into consideration legal counsel's evaluation of such suits
and actions, and after taking into account current litigation
accruals, that the outcome of these matters currently pending
against Whirlpool should not have a material adverse effect, if
any, on our financial position, liquidity, or results of
operations.

Whirlpool is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer
of home appliances, headquartered in Benton Charter Township,
Michigan, United States, near Benton Harbor, Michigan.


WILLBROS GROUP: Suit Over Financial Restatement Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit arising from Willbros Group, Inc.'s
restatement of its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, remains pending,
according to the Company's March 8, 2017, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas ("USDC") on October 28,
2014 seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from
the matters that led to the restatement. The original defendants
in the case were the Company, its former chief executive officer,
Robert R. Harl, and its current chief financial officer. On
January 30, 2015, the court named two employee retirement systems
as Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint, captioned In re Willbros Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, on March 31, 2015, adding as a defendant John T.
McNabb, II, the former chief executive officer who had succeeded
Mr. Harl, and claims regarding the restatement of the Company's
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014.

On June 15, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, seeking unspecified damages and asserting
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in the SEC filings and other
public disclosures in 2014, primarily regarding internal controls,
the performance of the Oil & Gas segment, compliance with debt
covenants and liquidity, certain financial results and the
circumstances surrounding Mr. Harl's departure.

On July 27, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case.
At a hearing on May 24, 2016, the court granted the motion to
dismiss in part and denied it in part.

On July 22, 2016, the Company filed an answer to the suit denying
the remaining allegations in the case, which complain of alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in violation of the Act regarding
internal controls, the performance of the Oil & Gas segment and
Mr. Harl's departure.

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

The Company is vigorously defending against the remaining
allegations, which the Company believes are without merit. The
Company is not able at this time to determine the likelihood of
loss, if any, arising from this matter.

Willbros Group, Inc., is a specialty energy infrastructure
contractor serving the oil and gas and power industries with
offerings that primarily include construction, maintenance and
facilities development services.


ZYNGA INC: $10MM Settlement in "Lee" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The $10 million settlement reached in the case captioned Lee v.
Pincus, awaits court approval, Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 17, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v.
Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company, and certain of our current and
former directors, officers, and executives. The complaint alleges
that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with
the release of certain lock-up agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering. The
complaint further states that "Zynga is named as a defendant
herein solely because it is a party to agreements underlying and
relating to the Secondary Offering."

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the
Company's shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements
and who were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012
secondary offering. On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.

On March 6, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the motions
to dismiss were pending. On November 14, 2014, the court denied
the motion to dismiss brought by the Company and the directors and
granted the motion to dismiss brought by the underwriters who had
been named as defendants.

On June 24, 2015, certain of the defendants filed a motion for
relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on the
motion for relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision is
complete. A hearing date has not been set.  On August 19, 2015,
the parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss three individual
director defendants from the case.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on July 13, 2015,
and, after briefing was completed, the court held a hearing on
plaintiff's motion on November 20, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the
court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On July
27, 2016, the court entered a scheduling order setting a trial
date of October 9, 2017.

A mediation session was conducted on September 20, 2016. The
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle Lee v. Pincus,
et al. as to all defendants for $10.0 million. The parties filed a
stipulation of settlement with the court on December 15, 2016. The
settlement, which remains subject to notice to the class and court
approval, would be funded entirely by insurance and lead to the
dismissal of all claims against the defendants. Accordingly, and
also because no claim for damages is asserted against the Company
in the Lee action, the Company is not considered the obligor in
the matter, and there would be no impact to the Company's
financial statements if the final settlement is consistent with
the current agreement. Given its preliminary nature, it remains
possible that the parties' settlement agreement may not result in
a final settlement, and that the assessment of the possibility of
loss or adverse effect on our financial condition, if any, could
therefore change in the near term.

Zynga Inc. develops, markets, and operates social games as live
services played over the Internet and on social networking sites
and mobile platforms.


* 1st Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference on May 1
------------------------------------------------------------
Register now for Beard Group's 1st Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference 2017 in NYC on May 1st!

Registration link: http://wp.me/P840Eq-14

Conference website & itinerary: http://wp.me/P840Eq-5

This year's attendees and faculty include professionals from these
top-tier firms, companies, and universities:

  - Aaron M. Levine & Associates
  - Adams and Reese LLP
  - Angeion Group
  - Baker Botts LLP
  - Bentham IMF
  - Berkeley Research Group
  - Bloomberg BNA
  - Cardozo Law School
  - Columbia Law School
  - Delaware Bay LLC
  - Dentons
  - Department of Attorney General for the State of Michigan
  - Edelson PC
  - EJF Capital LLC
  - FTI Consulting
  - Garden City Group, LLC
  - George Washington University
  - Greenberg Traurig LLP
  - Hagens Berman
  - Honorable Faith Hochberg
  - King & Spalding
  - Kirkland & Ellis LLP
  - Law Offices of Kenneth R. Feinberg, P.C.)
  - Levi & Korsinsky LLP
  - Lewis & Clark Law School
  - Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
  - Maurice Blackburn
  - McGuireWoods LLP
  - New York University
  - Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
  - Paul Weiss
  - Perini Capital
  - Postlethwaite & Netterville
  - Reisman Karron Greene
  - Rhode Island Center for Justice
  - Sipree, Inc.
  - Skadden Arps
  - The Law Offices of Kenneth R. Feinberg, P.C.
  - Thompson Reuters
  - UBS
  - University of Connecticut School of Law
  - US District Court E.D. Pa.
  - Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP


* Neil Gorsuch May Uphold Class Action Waivers, Attorney Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg BNA reports that in a March 2017 interview, Ron Chapman
Jr. discusses the utilization of class-action waivers in
arbitration agreements and employer best practices pending the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, No.
16-300, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285, and National
Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA Inc., No. 16-307, as well
as the potential role of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Donald
Trump's Supreme Court nominee, in the decision.

Ron Chapman Jr. -- ron.chapman@ogletree.com -- is a shareholder at
Ogletree Deakins' Dallas office.  He has defended employers in
more than 25 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands and regularly
provides counseling to clients on both legal and practical issues.
He also has extensive appellate experience. Chapman serves on the
firm's board. He is board certified in labor and employment law by
the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  The International Law
Office named him the overall winner for the entire United States
and the exclusive winner for Texas in the Employment and Labor
category for its Client Choice awards. Chapman was the lead
counsel in D.R. Horton Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, No.
12-60031.

Bloomberg BNA:

What are some advantages and disadvantages in including class-
action waivers in employment arbitration agreements?

Chapman:

There certainly are advantages and disadvantages to having an
arbitration agreement, but if an employer has an arbitration
agreement, there is no disadvantage to having a class-action
waiver in it.

In fact, the class-action waiver is the primary advantage to
having an arbitration agreement in the first place, as it
outweighs many of the negatives, such as the reduced likelihood of
winning summary judgment, the risk of an arbitrator "splitting the
baby" and the fees the employer must pay to the arbitrator.

Bloomberg BNA:

How may Judge Neil Gorsuch's stance affect the future of class-
action waivers if he is confirmed?

Chapman:

If, as expected, Judge Gorsuch is confirmed before the U.S.
Supreme Court and considers the class-action waiver cases, he very
well could cast the deciding vote.  Right now there is a bit of a
deadlock, with the National Labor Relations Board continuing to
find class-action waivers unlawful and most courts rejecting that
position.

Judge Gorsuch hasn't ruled on this precise issue previously, and
obviously, no one knows how he will rule if called upon to do so.
However, Judge Gorsuch's past decisions and writings suggest that
he's likely to vote to uphold the use of class-action waivers, as
most courts to have considered the issue have ruled.

Bloomberg BNA:

What trends have you observed in terms of employers including or
excluding class-action waivers in employee arbitration agreements
and are there any geographical differences?

Chapman:

Arbitration agreements with class-action waivers have become much
more prevalent in recent years, in the wake of Supreme Court cases
validating their use.  While there's currently a circuit split on
whether class-action waivers are permissible for non-supervisory
employees, the Supreme Court should resolve that issue, thereby
eliminating any geographical differences.

Bloomberg BNA:

How can employers and their legal counsel prepare pending the
Supreme Court's decision? Should employers continue to include
class-action waivers?

Chapman:

If an employer already has an arbitration agreement with a class-
action waiver, there's no reason to alter that course right now.
If an employer doesn't yet have an arbitration agreement with a
class-action waiver, it may want to wait until after the Supreme
Court rules to determine whether to adopt one, as the court's
decision may affect the pros and cons of having an arbitration
agreement and/or the wording needed in such an agreement.

There are two primary disadvantages to waiting to roll out an
arbitration agreement with a class-action waiver until after the
Supreme Court's ruling.  First, the employer may get sued in a
class action between now and then. Second, the process of weighing
the pros and cons of arbitration, drafting the agreement and
planning the logistics of the rollout of the agreement takes some
time.  Proactive employers may want to start that process now,
tweak the agreement as needed based on the Supreme Court's ruling
and then roll out the agreement immediately after the ruling.

Bloomberg BNA:

What alternatives, if any, to class-action waivers do employers
and their counsel have when drafting employee arbitration
agreements?

Chapman:

Many arbitration agreements contain an opt-out provision, allowing
the employee to opt out within a certain amount of time. This can
help negate many of the challenges to arbitration agreements, such
as the contention that the agreement was forced upon the employee,
as it reinforces that the agreement is voluntary.

Bloomberg BNA:

What innovative litigation strategies and arguments have you
witnessed in defending against class-action waiver claims, and how
will the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision affect the
utilization of them?

Chapman:

In a few instances, we've had to seek an injunction prohibiting an
arbitrator from ignoring the class-action waiver in an arbitration
agreement.  Hopefully, the Supreme Court will resolve any
remaining uncertainty on the validity of class-action waivers,
thereby making satellite litigation over their enforceability
unnecessary.

Bloomberg BNA:

How do you predict the Supreme Court's decision may affect how
employers resolve employee workplace claims in the future?

Chapman:

I've studied every court decision ever issued on the validity of
class-action waivers. In the end, I think the Supreme Court will
adopt the view of the vast majority of courts to have considered
the issue and validate the use of such waivers.  Ultimately, this
will help both employers and employees resolve bona fide disputes
more quickly.

I suspect there will be something in the Supreme Court's ruling
necessitating that the language in most arbitration agreements be
tweaked.  The precise wording in an arbitration agreement is
extremely important. Having unlawful language or excluding
required language can result in the agreement being invalid. Also,
there are several key strategic decisions an employer needs to
make in tailoring an arbitration agreement to its particular
workforce.  One size doesn't necessarily fit all.


* Two Recent Rulings Illustrate Contrasting Spokeo Approaches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Archis A. Parasharami, Esq., and Kevin Ranlett, Esq., of Mayer
Brown, in an article for Class Defense Blog, report that hundreds
of lower courts have interpreted and applied the Supreme Court's
decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins over the past ten months.  We
will provide a more comprehensive report on the post-Spokeo
landscape in the near future, but the overarching takeaway is that
the majority of federal courts of appeals have faithfully applied
Spokeo's core holdings that "Article III standing requires a
concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation," and
that a plaintiff does not "automatically satisf[y] the injury-in-
fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory
right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate
that right."  Nonetheless, a handful of other decisions have been
receptive to arguments by the plaintiffs' bar that Spokeo did not
make a difference in the law of standing, and that the bare
allegation that a statutory right has been violated, without more,
remains enough to open the federal courthouse doors to "no-injury"
class actions.

Two recent decisions by the Seventh and Third Circuits illustrate
these contrasting approaches.

Judge Posner's opinion for the court in Gubala v. Time Warner
Cable, Inc. reflects the majority view.  Gubala is a classic
example of a no-injury class action: the plaintiff, a former
customer of Time Warner, sued Time Warner, alleging that the
company had continued to retain his personal information in
violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act, which requires
that cable companies destroy customers' personal information
within a certain time period. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 551(e).  The
plaintiff did not contend that the cable company's alleged
violation -- holding on to his information longer than the statute
allows -- either had harmed him or put him at a material risk of
harm in the future.  In his view, it was enough that the statute
prohibited the cable company's conduct. The district court
dismissed the claim for lack of standing, holding that alleging a
bare statutory violation of this kind is no longer enough under
"the clear directive in Spokeo."

In affirming, the Seventh Circuit rejected the argument --
commonly raised by the plaintiffs' bar after Spokeo -- that the
Supreme Court's conclusion that Article III mandates "concrete"
harm is somehow limited to "procedural" statutory rights.  As the
court put it, "a failure to comply with a statutory requirement to
destroy information is substantive, yet need not (in this case, so
far as appears, did not) cause a concrete injury."  An earlier
Seventh Circuit opinion had likewise rejected the same argument,
holding that regardless of "whether the right is characterized as
'substantive' or 'procedural,' its violation must be accompanied
by an injury-in-fact."  That earlier opinion also noted that its
analysis was "in accord with those of our sister circuits in
similar statutory injury cases," citing decisions from the D.C.,
Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits.

The Gubala court also reiterated that a plaintiff does not
automatically satisfy Article III simply by alleging the violation
of a statutory requirement.  He must instead plausibly allege harm
or a "risk of harm to himself from such a violation
-- any risk substantial enough to be deemed 'concrete.'"  If this
requirement were not enforced, "the federal courts would be
flooded with cases based not on proof of harm but on an
implausible and at worst trivial risk of harm."

Judge Posner also observed that it is hard for plaintiffs to cry
foul about federal courts' enforcement of Article III standing
rules.  Because the plaintiff in a no-injury class action has, by
definition, not suffered any concrete harm as a result of the
alleged statutory violation, the only "'victims' of the rule are
persons or organizations who suffer no significant deprivation if
denied the right to sue."  At most, such plaintiffs (and their
lawyers) are deprived of the opportunity to pursue a statutory
damages bounty -- and the interest in obtaining such a bounty has
never been sufficient to create an Article III case or
controversy.

The Third Circuit's opinion in In re Horizon Healthcare Services
Inc.  Data Breach Litigation adopts a much different view of
Spokeo.  The case stems from the theft of two laptops containing
sensitive personal information from the headquarters of Horizon, a
health insurer.  The plaintiffs alleged that Horizon failed to
protect their personal information adequately in violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); they also brought several state
law causes of action.

Prior to Spokeo, the district court dismissed the claims for lack
of Article III standing.  For three of the four named plaintiffs,
the district court relied heavily on the Third Circuit's earlier
decision in Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., which held in the context of
another data breach that the plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing to bring their common-law claims in the absence of any
misuse of their data or allegations showing "imminent" and
"certainly impending" future harm. (The fourth named plaintiff in
the Horizon Healthcare case had alleged that he was the victim of
identity theft, but the district court ruled that he had not
adequately tied the identity theft to the challenged breach.)

The Third Circuit reversed.  Judge Jordan's opinion for the panel
majority acknowledged Reilly, but held that it did not control
because the plaintiffs in this case had alleged a violation of the
FCRA (rather than common-law claims alone).  The court held that
the "passage of the FCRA" made Horizon's alleged failure to
prevent the disclosure of plaintiffs' personal information "an
injury in and of itself" -- "whether or not the disclosure of that
information increased the risk of identity theft or some other
future harm."

The court acknowledged that "it is possible to read the Supreme
Court's decision in Spokeo as creating a requirement that a
plaintiff show a statutory violation has caused a 'material risk
of harm' before he can bring suit."  And it acknowledged that
other courts have done so, including the district court in the
Gubala case discussed above and the Eighth Circuit in Braitberg v.
Charter Communications, Inc. -- and many other decisions not
explicitly referenced by the court. But the panel majority
expressly parted ways with those decisions, instead concluding
that Spokeo had little or no effect on the law of standing and
embracing pre-Spokeo decisions holding that technical violations
of statutes cause Article III injury.

Judge Shwartz concurred in the judgment.  She disagreed with the
majority that the alleged statutory violation on its own amounted
to a concrete injury, but she would have concluded that the
plaintiffs had standing based on the alleged loss of their
privacy. (We think this alternative conclusion is troubling too,
but will save that discussion for another day.)

In our view, the majority's reasoning is hard to square with
Spokeo.  The argument that Congress's creation of a cause of
action in the FCRA automatically satisfies Article III is
precisely the argument that the Supreme Court rejected, instead
requiring "concrete injury even in the context of a statutory
violation."  Moreover, if, as the panel's opinion indicates, mere
exposure to the statutory violation automatically amounts to a
present concrete harm, it is unclear why the Supreme Court would
have held -- citing its decision in Clapper v. Amnesty
International USA requiring alleged future injury to be certainly
impending -- that "the risk of real harm can[] satisfy the
requirement of concreteness."  And while the Third Circuit panel
cited passages from Justice Thomas's concurrence in Spokeo in
support of its conclusion that the case did not change the law, no
other member of the Court signed on to that concurrence, nor did
Justice Thomas provide the deciding vote for the majority opinion.

Finally, we do note one bright spot in the panel's opinion for
data breach defendants.  The court rejected the plaintiff's
argument that Horizon's offer of free credit monitoring to those
affected by the breach could be used "as a concession or
recognition that the Plaintiffs have suffered injury."

Recognizing that a contrary rule would disincentivize companies
from taking remedial steps following a breach, the court found
instructive the provisions in the Federal Rules of Evidence that
protect such efforts by excluding evidence of subsequent remedial
measures or settlement offers as proof of culpability.



                         *********


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  * * *