CAR_Public/170501.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


               Monday, May 1, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 86



                            Headlines

ADVENTIST MIDWEST: Court Wants Class Cert. Bid in "Smith" Revised
AFFILIATED GROUP: Class Certification Sought in "Linares" Suit
ALLIANCE ONE: July 13 Fairness Hearing on "Hyun" Suit Settlement
ALPHA & OMEGA: Bid to Certify Class in "Marshall" Suit Denied
ALTEGRA HEALTH: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

AMBEV SA: Summary Judgment Bid in Brewers Suit to Be Heard in 4Q
AMERICAN DG: Faces "May" Merger-Related Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
AMERICAN DG: Defends "Vardakas" Merger-Related Suit in D. Mass.
AMERICAN HONDA: "Mckown" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
AMERICAN PRO: May 1 Hearing on Class Certification Bid Vacated

AMPACET OHIO: Plant Employees Opt-in Class Certified
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Eighth Circuit Remands "Anderson" Suit
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Summary Judgment Bid Will Be Heard in 4Q
ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Dismissal Appeal to Begin May 18
AVA RESTAURANT: Court Certified Class & Subclass in "Cazares"

AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation
BANK OF AMERICA: June 1 Hearing on Bid to Approve "Pastor" Accord
BANKRATE INC: Wins Final Approval of $20-Mil. Suit Settlement
BB&T CORPORATION: Certification of 401(k) Savings Class Sought
BITESQUAD.COM: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

BLATT & MOORE: Lamar Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass
BOURBON STREET: Reynolds Seeks Certification of Bartenders Class
BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Class Cert. Bid in Cin-Q Auto Suit Denied
BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Settlement in TTA Suit Has Initial OK
CACH LLC: Judge Blakey Dismissed "Hallom" Case with Prejudice

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Stolinski Bid to Certify Class Nixed
CENTEGRA HEALTH: "Byrne" Suit Seeks to Certify Clinicians Class
CENTEGRA HEALTH: Hearing on "Byrne" Class Cert. Bid Continued
CERNER CORP: Crawford Seeks to Certify Analysts Class
CHICAGO, IL: RCP Publications Seeks Certification of Class

CIGNA HEALTH: Welp Seeks to Certify of Classes & Subclasses
CITIZEN'S TAXI: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
CMRE FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
COIL CHEM: Court Granted Conditional Certification in "Cooper"
COLLECTION ASSOCIATES: Bid for Class Certification Stayed

COLLECTO INC: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Gives More Info on FairPoint Merger
CONSTELLIUM NV: Continues to Defend Class Suit by Retirees/Union
COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Paci" Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
CSW INC: Davis, et al. Seek Conditional Class Certification

CVS PHARMACY: "Lowe" Plaintiffs May File Modified Class Cert. Bid
DIM SUM VILLA: "Lin" Suit Seeks to Certify Tipped Employees Class
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Denied Class Certification as Moot
EKF DIAGNOSTICS: Dr. Sartin Seeks Certification of Class
ELRON ELECTRONIC: Awaits OK of $1.1-Mil. Shareholder Settlement

EMBRAER SA: Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Suit Remains Pending
EMERY FEDERAL: 2nd Amended Bid for Class Certification Filed
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Williams Seeks to Certify Consumers Class
EXCEL STAFFING: Ferebee Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
EXPRESS COURIER: Harris et al. Seek to Certify Collective Action

FEDERATED SECURITIES: "Simai" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
FEDEX CORP: Wins Final OK of Settlement in Arkansas Suit vs. Unit
FIFTH STREET: "Linde" Suit Now Closed After $9.25MM Deal Approval
FIFTH STREET: Says N.Y. Suit Now Closed After $14MM Deal Approval
FLORIDA: Class Cert. Bid in Suit v. Seeger et al. Denied

FLUIDMASTER INC: Court Denies Class Certification in "Sullivan"
FORSTER & GARBUS: Settlement in "Feliciano" Case Approved
FULENWIDER ENTERPRISES: Certification of FLSA Opt-in Class Sought
GC SERVICES: Class Certification Bid in "O'Boyle" Suit Stayed
GOOGLE INC: Free Range Suit Seeks Certification of Three Classes

GRADE A: De Leon et al. Seek to Certify Employees Class
GRANITE CITY FOOD: Koenig Seeks Conditional Collective Cert.
GRANITE CITY FOOD: Koenig Seeks to Certify Tipped Employees Class
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Rudel Suit Seeks to Certify Merchants Class
HORIZON FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid in "Wandersee" Stayed

ILLINOIS: Class Certification Bid in "Koss" Suit Denied
INFUSYSTEM HOLDINGS: Expects Filing of Consolidated Amended Suit
INNOVAK INT'L: Bohannan Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses
LAGASSE LLC: Motion for Class Certification Withdrawn
LUBY'S INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Woods" Suit

MARATHON OIL: Baucum Seeks to Certify Advisors & Operators Class
MARY JANE M. ELLIOTT: Buck Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
MATCH GROUP: "Perkins" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
MDL 2420: DPP and IPP Purchasers' Class Certification Bids Denied
MDL 2740: Bid to Certify Class Sought in Taxotere Litigation

MERCHANTS CREDIT: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Certification of 4 Classes
MIDLAND CREDIT: Class Certified in "Leinenweber" Suit
MOMS IN MOTION: "LaRue" Suit Seeks to Certify Facilitators Class
MULTI PACKAGING: Supplements Disclosures to Appease Shareholders
NORTHLAND GROUP: Settlement in "Hyun" Suit Has Initial OK

OFF LEASE ONLY: Mohamed Seeks to Certify Spam Text Class
OPTUM INC: "Mauthe" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
OPTUM360 LLC: "Conner" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
PEABODY ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Lynn" Class Suit
PERCHERON FIELD: Suit Seeks to Certify Right of Way Agents Class

PERSOLVE LLC: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Settlement in "Klippel" Suit Has Initial OK
PREMIER CONSTRUCTION: Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought
RBS CITIZENS: "Reinig" Suit Seeks Certification of 10 Classes
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed

RFI CONSTRUCTION: Conditional Certification of FLSA Class Sought
ROYAL BANCSHARES: Expects Resolution of Appeal in Fourth Quarter
RUSHMORE LOAN: "Williams" Suit Seeks Certification of 6 Classes
SALANDER ENTERPRISES: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued
SEAFOOD JUNCTION: "MORRIS" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Class Suits in California
SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits
SEARS HOLDINGS: Matters Over Asbestos Exposure Remain Pending
SOUTHERN HEALTH: "Medley" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
SPARK NETWORKS: Wins Final OK of Accord Resolving Israeli Suits

STAR BULK: Awaits Order in Appeal From Shareholder Suit Dismissal
STAR HOME: "Paradysz" Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
STATE COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
U.S. SECURITY: "Barnett" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
UAW: Retired Employees Class Certified in Barnes Group Suit

UNITED RECOVERY: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
US BANK: Continues to Defend Suits, Including BlackRock Cases
VERIZON: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Aliksanyan" Suit
VOLVO CARS: Class Certification Bid in "Neale" Suit Nixed
WALGREEN CO: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Certification of Class

WELLS FARGO: "Merino" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
WELLS FARGO: Bids to Dismiss Suits by Investors Remain Pending
WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL: Inmates Seek to Certify Class
WHIRLPOOL CORP: May 15 Hearing on Bid to Certify 7 Classes


                            *********


ADVENTIST MIDWEST: Court Wants Class Cert. Bid in "Smith" Revised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jeffrey T. Gilbert entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Ryan Smith, the Plaintiff, v. ADVENTIST MIDWEST HEALTH, an
Illinois Non-profit Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-07606 (N.D.
Ill.), striking Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 25, 2017,
Plaintiff's motion for leave to exceed page limit in Plaintiff's
motion for class certification is granted in part. Plaintiff is
given leave to file a 25-page brief. Defendant is given 25 pages
for its response and Plaintiff has 15 pages for his reply.
Plaintiff was given until April 28 to file his revised class
certification motion.

The briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is modified as follows: Response due by May 26,
2017. Reply due is by June 9, 20117. Plaintiff's Motion for leave
to file under seal of Plaintiff's motion for class certification
is granted. The motion hearing noticed for May 2, 2017 at 9:15
a.m. is stricken with no appearances required.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xZ7gn5Yb


AFFILIATED GROUP: Class Certification Sought in "Linares" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARIA C. LINARES, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE AFFILIATED
GROUP, INC., a Minnesota Corporation, d/b/a AFFILIATED CREDIT
SERVICES; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00450-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin, to whom
   AFFILIATED mailed a written collection communication, which
   contained a statement it "is licensed by the Division of
   Banking in the Wisconsin Department of Financial
   Institutions," during the period beginning March 28, 2016 and
   ending April 20, 2017".

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

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that her attorneys,
Stern Thomasson LLP, be appointed Class Counsel.

The case involves a collection letter dated March 28, 2016,
which Affiliated mailed Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an
alleged debt owed to Midwest Dental Green Bay-NE. The bottom of
the Letter read, "This collection agency is licensed by the
Division of Banking in the Wisconsin Department of Financial
Institutions."  According to the complaint, at no time during this
lawsuit was Affiliated licensed by the Division of Banking in the
Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6Et0Bj0z

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLIANCE ONE: July 13 Fairness Hearing on "Hyun" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled HYUN SOON CHUNG, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE ONE
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC. and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-02905-MCA-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Madeline Cox Arleo certified this class for purposes of
settlement:

   "all consumers residing in the State of New Jersey, to whom
   Defendant sent a collection letter to Plaintiffs Complaint;
   which letter (a) was dated within one year prior to April 23,
   2015, (b) was not returned by the United States Postal Service
   as undeliverable, (c) was seeking to collect a consumer debt
   allegedly owed to TD Bank USA, N.A., and (d) was sent in a
   windowed envelope such that the financial account number
   associated with the debt was visible from outside the
   envelope".

The Settlement Agreement provides in part for Defendant to (1)
retain the Settlement Administrator mutually selected by the
Parties; (2) establish a settlement fund in the amount set
forth in the Settlement Agreement; (3) pay the Class
Representative the aggregate amount of $3,500 for individual
statutory damages and service payment, subject to approval by the
Court; and (4) pay Plaintiffs reasonable counsel fees, costs, and
expenses, as determined by the Court.

The Parties have selected Atticus Administration, LLC as the
Settlement Administrator. The Settlement Administrator shall be
responsible for administering the settlement according to the
terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement and as ordered.
Defendant has provided the Settlement Administrator with an
electronic database containing the identifying information of
Settlement Class Members pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The
costs of administering the settlement, including but not limited
to formatting and printing the Class Notice, updating the database
and mailing the Class Notice, and issuing and mailing the
settlement checks, shall be paid by Defendant, and such payment
shall not reduce or diminish in any way the relief to be paid to
Plaintiff or the Settlement Class as identified in the Settlement
Agreement.

The Court appointed Andrew R. Wolf, Esq. and Bharati Sharma Patel,
Esq. of The Wolf Law Firm, LLC and Yongmoon Kim, Esq. of the Kim
Law Firm LLC as Class Counsel.

A fairness hearing is set for July 13, 2017, in Newark, New
Jersey.  Objections to the settlement are due June 7.

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


ALPHA & OMEGA: Bid to Certify Class in "Marshall" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN MARSHALL, LAWRENCE GATES, and EARL
HENSLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALPHA & OMEGA TRANSIT NETWORK, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-02257-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Colin S. Bruce entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify class; and

   2. referring the case to the magistrate judge for further
      proceedings in accordance with the order.

The Court finds instructive the decision of the district court in
Eash v. Export Packaging Company, Inc., 2010 WL 3724770 (C.D. Ill.
Sept. 15, 2010). In Eash, the plaintiffs claimed 225 employees
were subject to a mass layoff at the defendant's facility without
notice, in violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (WARN) (29 U.S.C. par. 2101). The court, however,
found that the number, put forth by the plaintiffs in their
affidavits, did "not explain how [the plaintiff] had knowledge
that 225 employees were terminated without notice" and that the
number was pure speculation, and not supported by competent
evidence, as none of the plaintiffs worked at the defendant's
human resources department. Eash, 2010 WL 3724770, at 2. Likewise
in the instant case, Plaintiffs do not explain how they know forty
or more of Defendant's drivers still have unsatisfied compensation
demands (and, thus, a claim in this case) following the Department
of Labor-ordered payouts. A plaintiff's failure to put forth
sufficient or even minimal evidence of numerosity is enough to
deny a motion for class certification. Iosello, 2005 WL 2007147 at
5, citing Retired Chicago Police Officers Association v. City of
Chicago, 7 F.3d 584, 596 (7th Cir. 1993).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=L6pBu7VJ


ALTEGRA HEALTH: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DR. DAVID SIMAI, on behalf of plaintiff
and the class defined herein Plaintiff, v. ALTEGRA HEALTH
CONNECTIONS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-02292 (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff seeks certification of a
class consisting of:

   (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior
   to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. par. 1658), (c) were
   sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Altegra Health
   Connections, LLC, advertising or promoting its goods or
   services for sale.

The Plaintiff further asks that he be appointed class
representative and that Tiffany N. Hardy of Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC and Adam J. Fishbein be appointed counsel
for the class.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yiRGCgN6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com

               - and -

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


AMBEV SA: Summary Judgment Bid in Brewers Suit to Be Heard in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for summary judgment in the Brewers Retail Inc.
Litigation will be heard in the fourth quarter of 2017, Ambev S.A.
said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 22, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2016.

On December 12, 2014, a lawsuit was commenced in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against the Liquor Control Board of
Ontario (LCBO), Brewers Retail Inc. (known as The Beer Store or
"TBS"), and the owners of Brewers Retail Inc. (Molson Coors
Canada, Sleeman Breweries Ltd. and Labatt Breweries of Canada LP
(the "Brewers").  The lawsuit was brought in Canada pursuant to
the Ontario Class Proceedings Act, and sought, among other things:
(1) to obtain a declaration that the defendants conspired with
each other to allocate markets for the supply of beer sold in
Ontario since June 1, 2000; (2) to obtain a declaration that the
Brewers conspired to fix, increase and/or maintain prices charged
to Ontario licensees (on-trade) for beer and the fees charged by
TBS to other competitive brewers who wished to sell their products
through TBS; and (3) damages for unjust enrichment.  As part of
this third allegation, the plaintiffs allege illegal trade
practices by Brewers.  They are seeking damages not exceeding
C$1.4 billion (approximately R$3.9 billion); punitive, exemplary
and aggravated damages of C$5 million (R$14.1 million); and
changes/repeals of the affected legislation.

The Company says it has not recorded any provision in connection
therewith. A motion for summary judgment has been filed by the
defendants and should be heard in the fourth quarter of 2017.  A
hearing related to the class certification and trial on the merits
is not expected to be held before 2018.

Headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Ambev S.A. is the successor of
Brahma and Antarctica, two of the oldest brewers in Brazil.
Antarctica was founded in 1885.  Brahma was founded in 1888 as
Villiger & Cia.  The Brahma brand was registered on September 6,
1888, and in 1904 Villiger & Cia. changed its name to Companhia
Cervejaria Brahma.  However, the legal entity that has become
Ambev S.A., the current NYSE-and BM&FBOVESPA-listed company, was
incorporated on July 8, 2005 as a non-reporting Brazilian
corporation under the Brazilian Corporation Law and is the
successor of Old Ambev.


AMERICAN DG: Faces "May" Merger-Related Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
American DG Energy Inc. is facing a merger-related class action
lawsuit in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, according to the
Company's March 21, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit brought by a
public shareholder of the Company in the Business Litigation
Section of the Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
(the "State Court"), May v. American DG Energy Inc., et al., Civ.
Act. No. 17-0390-BLS2.  The State Court case, filed on February 6,
2017, challenges a proposed merger transaction pursuant to which
the Company would be acquired by an affiliated company, Tecogen
Inc.  The complaint alleges (i) breach of fiduciary duties against
the individual defendants, and (ii) aiding and abetting the
board's breaches of fiduciary duties against Tecogen.

American DG Energy Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts.  The Company installs,
owns, operates and maintains complete distributed generation, or
DG systems or energy systems, and other complementary systems at
customer sites and sell electricity, hot water, heat and cooling
energy under long-term contracts at prices guaranteed to the
customer to be below conventional utility rates.


AMERICAN DG: Defends "Vardakas" Merger-Related Suit in D. Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
American DG Energy Inc. is defending a merger-related class action
lawsuit pending in Massachusetts District Court, according to the
Company's March 21, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company is named as a defendant (although no service of
process has yet been effected) in a second class action lawsuit
brought by a different public shareholder in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Federal
Court"), Vardakas v. American DG Energy Inc., et al., Case 1:17-
cv-10247-MPK (D. Mass).  The Federal Court case, filed on February
15, 2017, similarly challenges the proposed merger described
above.  Specifically, the complaint alleges (i) violations of
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-
9 promulgated thereunder, (ii) violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, (iii) various breaches of fiduciary duties, and (iv)
aiding and abetting of said breaches by specific defendants.

American DG Energy Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts.  The Company installs,
owns, operates and maintains complete distributed generation, or
DG systems or energy systems, and other complementary systems at
customer sites and sell electricity, hot water, heat and cooling
energy under long-term contracts at prices guaranteed to the
customer to be below conventional utility rates.


AMERICAN HONDA: "Mckown" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JAMES R. MCKOWN AND MARGARET J. MCKOWN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00204-R-JC (C.D. Cal.), James R. and Margaret J.
McKown will move the Court on May 15, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. before
the Honorable Judge Manuel L. Real, in Courtroom 880 of the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, for
an order certifying the action as a class action and appointing
them and their counsel as representatives of the following class:

   "all persons or entities who (a) currently own or lease a
   Class Vehicle with soy-based components; and/or (b) previously
   owned or leased a Class Vehicle with soy-based components and
   can be identified as having incurred out-of-pocket expenses
   related to soy-based component defects".

In the alternative, if the Court finds that certification of a
nationwide class is improper, Plaintiffs seek to certify a
separate Kansas-only subclass:

   "all persons or entities in Kansas who (a) currently own or
   lease a Class Vehicle with soy-based components; and/or (b)
   previously owned or leased a Class Vehicle with soy-based
   components and can be identified as having incurred out-of-
   pocket expenses related to soy-based component defects".

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aHlc5C2t

Attorneys for James R. and Margaret J. McKown:

          Paul B. Maslo, Esq.
          Andrew J. Dressel, Esq.
          Jennifer Liakos, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          525 South Douglas Street, Suite 260
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 331 8224
          Facsimile: (646) 843 760
          E-mail: pmaslo@napolilaw.com
                  adressel@napolilaw.com
                  jliakos@napolilaw.com


AMERICAN PRO: May 1 Hearing on Class Certification Bid Vacated
--------------------------------------------------------------
On the Court's own motion, the hearing on the Amended Unopposed
Motion for Class Certification is advanced to 8:30 a.m., on May 1,
2017, according to an order dated April 26 by Judge Michael W.
Fitzgerald in the lawsuit titled LORI GOLDEN, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
AMERICAN PRO ENERGY, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00891-MWF-DTB
(C.D. Cal.).

In an Order dated April 28, the Court took the Hearing on the
Amended Motion and Amended Unopposed Motion for Class
Certification off calendar and under submission.  The hearing set
for May 1 is vacated.  The Courtroom Deputy will be contacting
counsel to arrange a telephonic status conference later in the
week.

The complaint alleges that Defendant had employed a practice
generally applicable to the Class that allowed for phone calls to
be placed to cellphone numbers using autodialing equipment, and
Defendant failed to honor do not call requests, failing to scrub
for cell phone numbers, failing to comply with the Federal Do Not
Call Registry, and Defendant by continuing to place calls to
persons without prior express written consent, as required by the
law.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B9Ofct1y

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis Wood, Esq.
          Kas Gallucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, California 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696 9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564 6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com
                  kas@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          Andrew C. Hamilton, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 798-2006
          E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com
                  andrew@westonfirm.com


AMPACET OHIO: Plant Employees Opt-in Class Certified
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Bobby Hicks, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Ampacet Ohio, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00182-
MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Watson entered an
order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify an
      opt-in class of:

      "all current and former Plant Employees employed by
      Defendants, at their Heath, Ohio location, for 3 years
      prior to the date of filing this Complaint who were paid
      hourly and have not been paid overtime pay for all hours
      worked in a week in excess of forty for the time spent at
      mandatory 15-minute pre-shift and for the mandatory post-
      shift showering (Plant Employees).

   2. denying without prejudice Defendants' motion for summary
      judgment and Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order; and

   3. granting Plaintiffs' motion to stay.

The Court said, "While Defendants offer competing evidence and
arguments that Plaintiffs were not similarly situated, those
arguments largely go to the merits of Plaintiffs claims. The Court
is satisfied that, under the lenient standard applied at this
initial stage of the proceedings, Plaintiffs have met their modest
burden of showing that they have a colorable basis for their claim
that a class of similarly situated plaintiffs exists. Notably,
"[a]t the notice stage, district courts within the Sixth Circuit
typically do not consider the merits of the plaintiffs' claims,
resolve factual disputes, make credibility determinations, or
decide substantive issues." Swigart, 276 F.R.D. at 214.
Accordingly, although Defendants' arguments "may
be compelling, the Court finds it inappropriate to engage in a
merits analysis at this stage of the lawsuit." Id. In short,
Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that they are similarly
situated to hourly PTs at the Heath Plant who were not paid for
overtime".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2ujXNwkh


ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Eighth Circuit Remands "Anderson" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's
decision but remanded the consolidated lawsuit filed by Nancy
Anderson and Brian Knowlton, et al., according to Anheuser-Busch
InBev SA/NV's March 22, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On 10 January 2012, a class action complaint asserting claims very
similar to those asserted in the lawsuit by Richard F. Angevine
was filed in Federal Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
styled Nancy Anderson et al. v. Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension
Plan et al. Unlike the Angevine case, however, the plaintiff in
this matter alleges complete exhaustion of all administrative
remedies. On 11 March 2013 the court consolidated the case with
the Knowlton case mentioned below. A three-count consolidated
complaint was filed on 19 April 2013. On 30 October 2013, the
court dismissed Counts II and III, including the breach of
fiduciary claims, but granted plaintiff leave to amend. On 19
November 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended Count III. The
Company filed an Answer to amended Count III on 30 May 2014. On 16
May 2014, the Court granted the plaintiff's class certification
motion on Count I, which certified a class of divested employees
of Busch Entertainment Corporation.

On 10 October 2012, another class action complaint was filed
against Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, Anheuser-Busch Companies
Pension Plan, Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan Appeals
Committee and the Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan
Administrative Committee by Brian Knowlton and several other
former Busch Entertainment Corporation Employees in the Southern
District of California. Like the other lawsuits, the Knowlton case
claims that the employees of any divested assets were entitled to
enhanced retirement benefits under section 19.11(f) of the Plan.
However, it specifically excluded the divested Metal Container
Corporation facilities that were included in the Adams class
action.

On 11 March 2013 the court consolidated the case with the Anderson
matter. On 30 October 2013, the court dismissed Counts II and III
of the Consolidated Complaint, including the breach of fiduciary
claims, but granted plaintiff leave to amend. On 19 November 2013,
the plaintiff filed an amended Count III, which was answered. On
16 May 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' request for class
certification, which certified a class of divested employees of
Busch Entertainment Corporation. On 8 July 2015, the Court granted
plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which was based
on the decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Adams
case. On 9 October 2015, the Court issued a final, appealable
order, as well as a stay pending appeal.

On 22 February 2017, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the lower court's decision awarding enhanced pension benefits to
the class of divested employees of Busch Entertainment
Corporation, but remanded the case to the lower court and in so
doing asked the lower court to reconsider whether plaintiffs were
entitled to a judgment containing the specific benefits owed.

The Company believes that the total amount of enhanced pension
benefit at issue in this case is approximately USD 67.8 million.

Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV is the world's largest brewer by volume
and one of the world's top five consumer products companies by
revenue. As a consumer-centric, sales-driven company, the Company
produces, markets, distributes and sells a diversified portfolio
of well over 500 beer and other malt beverage brands.  These
include brands with significant international distribution, such
as Budweiser, Corona (except in the United States), Stella Artois,
Beck's, Leffe, Hoegaarden, Castle Lager (except in the United
States), Castle Lite (except in the United States), and Redd's
(except in the United States); and brands primarily distributed to
local markets such as Bud Light and Michelob Ultra in the United
States; Corona Light, Modelo Especial, Negra Modelo, Victoria and
Pacifico in Mexico; Skol, and Brahma and Antarctica in Brazil.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Summary Judgment Bid Will Be Heard in 4Q
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV disclosed in its Form 20-F filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a motion for summary
judgment filed by the defendants in the Brewers Retail Inc.
Litigation will be heard in the fourth quarter of 2017.

On 12 December 2014, a lawsuit was commenced in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against the Liquor Control Board of
Ontario, Brewers Retail Inc. (known as The Beer Store or "TBS")
and the owners of Brewers Retail Inc. (Molson Coors Canada,
Sleeman Breweries Ltd. and Labatt Breweries of Canada LP). The
lawsuit was brought in Canada pursuant to the Ontario Class
Proceedings Act, and sought, among other things: (i) to obtain a
declaration that the defendants conspired with each other to
allocate markets for the supply of beer sold in Ontario since 1
June 2000; (ii) to obtain a declaration that Brewers Retail Inc.
and the owners of Brewers Retail Inc. conspired to fix, increase
and/or maintain prices charged to Ontario licensees (on-trade) for
beer and the fees charged by TBS to other competitive brewers who
wished to sell their products through TBS; and (iii) damages for
unjust enrichment.

As part of this third allegation, the plaintiffs allege illegal
trade practices by the owners of Brewers Retail Inc. They are
seeking damages not exceeding CAD $1.4 billion (USD 1.0 billion),
as well as punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages of CAD $5
million (USD 3.7 million) and changes/repeals of the affected
legislation. Ambev has not recorded any provision in connection
therewith. A motion for summary judgment has been filed by the
defendants and should be heard in the fourth quarter of 2017. The
class certification and trial on the merits is not expected to be
held before 2018.

Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV is the world's largest brewer by volume
and one of the world's top five consumer products companies by
revenue. As a consumer-centric, sales-driven company, the Company
produces, markets, distributes and sells a diversified portfolio
of well over 500 beer and other malt beverage brands.  These
include brands with significant international distribution, such
as Budweiser, Corona (except in the United States), Stella Artois,
Beck's, Leffe, Hoegaarden, Castle Lager (except in the United
States), Castle Lite (except in the United States), and Redd's
(except in the United States); and brands primarily distributed to
local markets such as Bud Light and Michelob Ultra in the United
States; Corona Light, Modelo Especial, Negra Modelo, Victoria and
Pacifico in Mexico; Skol, and Brahma and Antarctica in Brazil.


ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Dismissal Appeal to Begin May 18
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the appeal from the dismissal of a securities
litigation has been set to begin on May 18, 2017, Atossa Genetics
Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 21, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "On October 10, 2013, a putative securities
class action complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc.,
et al., No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington against us,
certain of our directors and officers and the underwriters of our
November 2012 initial public offering. The complaint alleges that
all defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act, and that we and certain of our directors and officers
violated Section 15, of the Securities Act by making material
false and misleading statements and omissions in the offering's
registration statement, and that we and certain of our directors
and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act
and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and
misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement
and in certain of our subsequent press releases and SEC filings
with respect to our NAF specimen collection process, our ForeCYTE
Breast Health Test and our MASCT device. This action seeks, on
behalf of persons who purchased our Common Stock between November
8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive, damages of an unspecific
amount."

On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi,
Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi
Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-
lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the
caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed
on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. The plaintiffs
filed briefs in opposition to these motions on July 11, 2014. The
Company replied to the opposition briefs on August 11, 2014. On
October 6, 2014 the Court granted defendants' motion dismissing
all claims against Atossa and all other defendants. The Court's
order provided plaintiffs with a deadline of October 26, 2014 to
file a motion for leave to amend their complaint and the
plaintiffs did not file such a motion by that date. On October 30,
2014, the Court entered a final order of dismissal.

On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Court and have appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On February 11, 2015,
plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief. Defendants' filed
their answering brief on April 13, 2015, and plaintiffs filed
their reply brief on May 18, 2015.

A hearing for the appeal has been set to begin on May 18, 2017.

The Company believes this complaint is without merit and plan to
defend against it vigorously; however failure to obtain a
favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
results of operations and financial condition. Currently, the
amount of such material adverse effect cannot be reasonably
estimated, and no provision or liability has been recorded for
these claims as of December 31, 2016. The costs associated with
defending and resolving the complaint and ultimate outcome cannot
be predicted. These matters are subject to inherent uncertainties
and the actual cost, as well as the distraction from the conduct
of the Company's business, will depend upon many unknown factors
and management's view of these may change in the future.

Atossa Genetics Inc. is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company
focused on the development of novel therapeutics and delivery
methods for the treatment of breast cancer and other breast
conditions.  The Company's leading program uses its patented
intraductal microcatheters, which deliver pharmaceuticals through
the breast ducts.


AVA RESTAURANT: Court Certified Class & Subclass in "Cazares"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled EMMANUEL CAZARES and ERICK PEREZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, V. AVA RESTAURANT CORP d/b/a BUCCANEER DINER and
COSTAS ALEXIOU, Jointly And Severally, the Defendants, Case No.
1:15-cv-00477-KAM-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto
entered an order:

   1. certifying a class pursuant to Plaintiffs' New York Labor
      Law (NYYLL) claims for unpaid overtime premiums, failure to
      provide wage notices and wage statements, as well as
      spread-of-hours claims accruing on or after January 1,
      2011:

     "all servers, bussers, dishwashers, delivery employees, food
      preparers and cooks who worked at Buccaneer Diner at any
      time from January 30, 2009 through the present;

   2. certifying a subclass pursuant to Plaintiffs' NYLL claims
      for unpaid minimum wage and such spread-of-hours claims as
      accrued prior to January 1, 2011:

      "all servers, bussers, dishwashers, delivery employees and
      food preparers (Minimum Wage Subclass or Subclass Members),
      who worked at Buccaneer Diner during the Class Period;

   3. appointing Emmanuel Cazares and Erick Perez are as class
      representatives for the Class and the Subclass;

   4. appointing Pelton Graham LLC as Class Counsel;

   5. directing Defendants to furnish to plaintiffs' counsel or a
      third-party claims administrator in electronically readable
      form the contact information, dates of employment and job
      positions/titles of all members of the Class so that
      plaintiffs can issue class notice; and

   6. directing Plaintiffs and defendants to meet and confer, and
      by April 14, 2017: (i) submit a joint revised proposed
      class notice; and (ii) advise the court whether a third-
      party claims administrator will be engaged or whether
      plaintiffs' counsel will serve the court-approved Class
      Notice.

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


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities lawsuit
against AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the Company's
March 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and
certain of the Company's former officers and directors, (Tuan Ha-
Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho),
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, one captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-JLT, filed on May 9, 2013, and the
other captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-JLT, filed on May 31, 2013. On December 4,
2013, the District Court consolidated the complaints as In re AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-
11157-DJC, and an amended complaint was filed on February 3, 2014.
The amended complaint purported to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013. This consolidated amended
complaint was dismissed without prejudice on March 20, 2015, and
the lead plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint bringing
similar allegations, and which no longer named Mr. DePinho as a
defendant.

The Company moved to dismiss again, and after a second round of
briefing and oral argument, the court ruled in the Company's favor
and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice on
November 18, 2015. The lead plaintiffs have appealed the court's
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit. They also filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the
district court's judgment, which the Company has opposed.

On January 3, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to vacate
the dismissal and judgment and Plaintiffs filed a motion to
dismiss their appeal on February 8, 2017. On February 2, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased common stock between May 16, 2012 and
May 1, 2013, alleging claims similar to those alleged in the prior
complaints, namely that the Company and certain of its former
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for its TIVO-1
clinical trial in an effort to lead investors to believe that the
drug would receive approval from the FDA.

On March 2, 2017, the Company filed an answer to the third amended
complaint, and the parties have initiated discovery. The lawsuit
seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.

The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there
is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense
or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any
settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action.
Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company
dedicated to advancing a broad portfolio of targeted therapeutics
for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need.


BANK OF AMERICA: June 1 Hearing on Bid to Approve "Pastor" Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Robert A. Pastor, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Bank of
America, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-03831-VC (N.D.
Cal.), Mr. Robert Pastor and Bank of America, N.A. will jointly
move the Court on June 1, 2017 for preliminary approval of the
Parties' class action settlement.

The parties move jointly for certification of a settlement class;
appointment of class counsel and class representatives;
preliminary approval of the Parties' proposed settlement; and,
approval of the Parties' proposed plan to provide notice to the
class.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=K33sSXV4

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3551
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  david@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
          245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ryan@kazlg.com


BANKRATE INC: Wins Final Approval of $20-Mil. Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it received final
approval of its $20 million settlement of a securities lawsuit.

In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was brought in
federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, and other defendants, which is
captioned The City of Los Angeles v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., No.
14-CV-81323-DMM. On November 23, 2015, the District Court
dismissed an amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice
for failing to adequately plead material misrepresentations or
omissions, scienter, or loss causation and damages. On December 8,
2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging
that the Company's 2012, 2013, and first half of 2014 financial
statements improperly recognized revenues and expenses and
therefore were materially false and misleading and caused damages.
Plaintiffs sought relief (including damages and rescission or
rescissionary damages) under the Securities Act of 1933 based on a
March 2014 secondary offering and under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all
persons, other than the defendants, who purchased the Company's
securities between August 1, 2012 and October 9, 2014, inclusive.

On May 17, 2016, the Company announced a proposed agreement,
subject to Court approval, to settle this private securities class
action against all defendants. Under the settlement, Bankrate
agreed to pay a total of $20 million in cash to a Settlement Fund
to resolve all claims asserted on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Bankrate stock between October 27,
2011 and October 9, 2014. The settlement further provided that
Bankrate denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability.

The court granted final approval of the settlement on February 6,
2017. The Company accrued the settlement amount as of June 30,
2016 and funded approximately $6.1 million to the settlement fund.
Approximately $13.8 million of the settlement fund has been funded
from insurance proceeds.

Bankrate, Inc., aggregates large scale audiences of in-market
consumers by providing them with proprietary, fully researched,
comprehensive, independent and objective personal finance and
senior care editorial content across multiple verticals including
credit cards, mortgages, deposits, senior care and other
categories, such as retirement, automobile loans, credit
management techniques and taxes.


BB&T CORPORATION: Certification of 401(k) Savings Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the two lawsuits entitled BURKE BOWERS, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. BB&T CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00732-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.); and BREWSTER SMITH, JR., et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. BB&T CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:15-cv-841-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.), Brewster Smith, Jr., Erik Gavidia,
Stephanie Gavidia, Doris Kirouac, Paula Bridges, Nancy Johnson,
Kerri Greaner, Burke Bowers, Robert Sims, Stacy Holstein, Jeffrey
Stauffer, and Patricia Wells move that the Court certify a class
of:

   "all current and former participants and beneficiaries of the
   BB&T Corporation 401(k) Savings from January 1, 2007 through
   the date of judgment, who were injured by the conduct alleged
   in the Second Amended Complaint, excluding the Defendants".

The Plaintiffs also move that the Court appoint each of them as
representatives of this class and appoint their attorneys,
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton LLP, as lead counsel and Nichols
Kaster as additional counsel for the class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(g).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fdCOoZ7p

Proposed Additional Class Counsel and Attorneys for Bowers
Plaintiffs:

          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
          Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256 3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338 4878
          E-mail: krichter@nka.com
                  cengstrom@nka.com
                  ahansen@nka.com

Proposed Lead Class Counsel and Attorneys for Smith Plaintiffs

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
          Troy A. Doles, Esq.
          Heather Lea, Esq.
          Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
          Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
          100 South Fourth Street
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621 6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621 5934
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  mwolff@uselaws.com
                  tdoles@uselaws.com
                  hlea@uselaws.com
                  ssoyars@uselaws.com
                  kstruckhoff@uselaws.com

Local Counsel for all Plaintiffs

          David B. Puryear, Jr., Esq.
          PURYEAR & LINGLE, PLLC
          5501-E Adams Farm Lane
          Greensboro, NC 27407
          Telephone: (336) 218 0227
          E-mail: puryear@puryearandlingle.com


BITESQUAD.COM: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned OLD TOWN PIZZA OF LOMBARD, INC., an
Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v.
BITESQUAD.COM, LLC, A Minnesota limited liability company, and
JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03082 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiff asks that the Court:

   1. certify a class of:

      "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
      filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
      messages of material advertising the commercial
      availability or quality of any property, goods, or services
      by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) from whom Defendants
      did not obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to
      send fax advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendants did
      not have an established business relationship, or (5) where
      the fax advertisements did not include an opt-out notice
      compliant with 47 C.F.R. par. 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)."

   2. appoint Plaintiff as the class representative; and

   3. appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eM1slcvu

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com


BLATT & MOORE: Lamar Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JESSICA LAMAR, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLATT, HASENMILLER,
LEIBSKER & MOORE, LLC; and PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04102-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class and a subclass.

The class is defined as:

   "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) to whom Blatt
   sent a letter offering a settlement (c) which letter stated
   that the settlement might have tax consequences, (d) and the
   letter was sent on or after one year prior to date this
   complaint was filed and on or before 21 days after this
   complaint was filed".

The subclass consists of:

   "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) to whom PRA
   or its agents or attorneys sent a letter offering a settlement
   (c) which letter stated that the settlement might have tax
   consequences, (d) and the letter was sent on or after one year
   prior to date this complaint was filed and on or before 21
   days after this complaint was filed".

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

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

The Defendants have been attempting to collect a judgment based on
an alleged credit card debt from plaintiff which was incurred for
personal, family or household purposes. On February 7, 2017,
Blatt, acting on behalf of PRA, sent plaintiff a letter seeking to
collect the alleged debt. The letter states that the balance due
as of February 7, 2017 was $908.73. The letter offers to settle
the alleged debt for 60% of $908.73.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Mw9uVeiM

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          BLATT, HASENMILLER, LEIBSKER & MOORE, LLC
          10 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60603

               - and -

          PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC
          C/O Illinois Corporation Service
          801 Adlai Stevenson Drive
          Springfield, IL 62703


BOURBON STREET: Reynolds Seeks Certification of Bartenders Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TIMOTHY REYNOLDS, for himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BOURBON STREET PUB, INC., a
Florida corporation, NEW ORLEANS HOUSE OF KEY WEST, INC., a
Florida corporation, and JOSEPH J. SCHROEDER, an individual, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-10023-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order:

   1. certifying a class certification of:

      "all current and former bartenders, who worked for any of
      the Defendants anytime during the three years prior to the
      Complaint being filed;

   2. directing Defendants to produce within 14 calendar days of
      the Court's Order, a list of each putative class member's
      name, address, telephone numbers, email address, and date
      of birth, in the form of a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, in
      order to effectuate the notice process;

   3. directing posting of the Notice in a conspicuous location
      for employees see at the Defendants' pub and motel within 5
      days of the Court's Order;

   4. authorizing Plaintiff to effectuate notice by mailing and
      emailing the proposed Notice to all putative class members
      within 30 days of receipt of the contact information from
      Defendants;

   5. directing that potential opt-in, similarly situated
      plaintiffs must consent to opt into this litigation by no
      later than 60 days from the date of mailing the notice, and
      that the Plaintiff's counsel shall file all Consent Forms
      within seven 7 days from receipt of each Consent to Join
      Form;

   6. allowing the Plaintiff to conduct a search for additional
      mailing and email addresses/contact information for any
      potential opt-in Plaintiffs whose address may be invalid,
      or whose notice is returned as undeliverable by the United
      States Post Office and re-mail/re-email the Notice to the
      putative plaintiff's last-known address; and,

   7. granting all other relief to the Plaintiff that the Court
      deems just.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants availed themselves of an
unlawful Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida Minimum Wage Act
FMWA "tip credit," which caused the Plaintiff and other bartenders
to be paid below the minimum wage under both federal and state
law. In addition, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants failed to
properly pay him and other bartenders overtime wages and minimum
wage for some of their work hours.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yhN1AebY

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samara Robbins Bober, Esq.
          Peter J. Bober, Esq.
          SAMARA ROBBINS BOBER
          BOBER & BOBER, P.A.
          1930 Tyler Street
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 922 2298
          Facsimile: (954) 922 5455
          E-mail: peter@boberlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher B. Deem, Esq.
          SMITH OROPEZA HAWKS
          www.SmithOropeza.com
          138 - 142 Simonton Street
          Key West, FL 33040
          Telephone: (305) 296 7227
          Facsimile: (305) 296 8448
          E-mail: chris@smithoropeza.com
                  brandi@smithoropeza.com


BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Class Cert. Bid in Cin-Q Auto Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CIN-Q AUTOMOBILES, INC., et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. BUCCANEERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 8:13-cv-01592-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Anthony E. Porcelli entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot;

   2. denying Plaintiffs' motion to transfer related case under
      Local Rule 4.01(b), to consolidate cases and appoint
      interim class counsel as moot;

   3. denying Defendant Buccaneers Limited Partnership's renewed
      motion for a determination that the mediation privilege has
      been waived by Plaintiffs' counsel as moot.

The Court said, "As articulated more fully in the Court's March
31, 2017 Order entered in Technology Training Assoc., Inc., et al.
v. Buccaneers Ltd. P'ship, Case No. 8:16-cv-1622-T-AEP (M.D. Fla.
filed June 20, 2016), a class and settlement have been
preliminarily approved regarding the same claims pending in this
action. As a result, each of the parties' motions has been
rendered moot".

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


BUCCANEERS LIMITED: Settlement in TTA Suit Has Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TECHNOLOGY TRAINING ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al., the Plaintiffs, v. BUCCANEERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01622-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Anthony E. Porcelli entered an order:

   1. denying Cin-Q Plaintiffs' motion to transfer related case
      under Local Rule 1.04(b), to consolidate cases, and appoint
      interim class counsel;

   2. denying Cin-Q Plaintiffs' motion to intervene;

   3. granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary
      approval of class action settlement and notice to the class
      as follows:

      a. Except as otherwise provided below, all capitalized
         terms used in this Order shall have the meanings and/or
         definitions given them in the Settlement Agreement and
         Release.

      b. The Court preliminarily approves the Agreement subject
         to the Fairness Hearing, the purpose of which will be to
         decide whether to grant final approval to the Settlement
         reached by the Parties. The Court finds that the
         Agreement, the Settlement set forth therein, and all
         exhibits attached thereto or to Plaintiffs' Motion For
         Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement are
         fair, reasonable, and adequate, entered into in good
         faith, free of collusion to the detriment of the
         Settlement Class and within the range of possible
         judicial approval to warrant sending notice of the
         Litigation and the proposed Settlement to the Settlement
         Class and to hold a full hearing on the proposed
         Settlement.

      c. For settlement purposes only, conditioned upon final
         certification of the proposed class and upon Final
         Judgment, the Court preliminarily certifies the
         following class:

         "all persons who, in 2009 or 2010, received one or more
         facsimile advertisements sent by or on behalf of BLP and
         offering tickets for Tampa Bay Buccaneer games".

         Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are the
         following Persons: (i) BLP and its respective parents,
         subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, associated
         entities, business units, predecessors in interest,
         successors, successors in interest and representatives
         and each of their respective immediate family members;
         (ii) Class Counsel; and (iii) the judges who have
         presided over the Litigation and any related cases.

      d. The Court recognizes that BLP reserves all of its
         defenses and objections against and rights to oppose any
         request for class certification in the event that the
         proposed Settlement does not become final for any
         reason. BLP also reserves all its defenses to the merits
         of the claims asserted in the event the Settlement does
         not become Final for any reason, with the notable
         exception regarding the statute of limitations.

      e. For settlement purposes only, the Court preliminarily
         appoints Plaintiffs as representative of the Settlement
         Class.

      f. For settlement purposes only, the Court preliminarily
         appoints the following attorneys to act as Class Counsel
         for the Settlement Class:

            Phillip A. Bock,
            Jonathan B. Piper,
            Daniel J. Cohen
            Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC
            134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000
            Chicago, Illinois 60602
            Telephone: (312) 658-5500
            Facsimile: (312) 658-5555

      g. The Court appoints the Settlement Administrator
         designated by the Parties, who will be an agent of the
         Court and subject to the Court's supervision and
         direction as circumstances may require.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Wmh8zTsR


CACH LLC: Judge Blakey Dismissed "Hallom" Case with Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Arthur Hallom, et al., the Plaintiff, v.
CACH, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09297 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. John Robert Blakey entered an order dismissing the
case with prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 17, 2017,
all pending deadlines and hearings are stricken. The civil case is
terminated.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mzbgBSE3


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Stolinski Bid to Certify Class Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer entered an order in the lawsuit
styled Agnes Stolinski, the Plaintiff, v. Capital Management
Services, LP, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00189 (N.D.
Ill.), striking a motion to certify class as moot.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 21, 2017,
on Plaintiff's oral request, the above cause is dismissed without
prejudice, with leave to reinstate within 45 days. Status hearing
set for May 4, 2017 is stricken.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=j9cYajSt


CENTEGRA HEALTH: "Byrne" Suit Seeks to Certify Clinicians Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LAURA BYRNE, on behalf of herself,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CENTEGRA HEALTH SYSTEM, the Defendant, Case No
1:17-cv-00018 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to:

   1. grant conditional certification of this action as a
      representative collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor
      Standards Act, on behalf of all Clinicians who were
      classified as exempt, were paid on a hybrid "per visit" and
      hourly basis, were not paid overtime compensation for time
      worked in excess of 40 hours in given workweeks, and who
      worked for Defendant dating back three 3) years from the
      date of notice until the present (FLSA Class);

   2. approve court-facilitated notice of this collective action
      to the FLSA Class;

   3. direct Defendant to produce a computer-readable data file
      containing the names, addresses, email addresses, telephone
      numbers, dates of employment, social security numbers, and
      dates of birth of the FLSA Class;

   4. authorize the posting of the Notice at a location in
      Defendant's office where members of the FLSA Class are
      likely to view it; and

   5. authorize Plaintiffs to send a notice, at their expense, by
      U.S. First Class mail and email to all members of the FLSA
      Class to inform them of their right to opt-in to this
      lawsuit and a reminder notice 15 days before the end of the
      opt-in period.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8G4icvxu

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
                  hjenkins@stephanzouras.com


CENTEGRA HEALTH: Hearing on "Byrne" Class Cert. Bid Continued
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Young B. Kim entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
Laura Byrne, the Plaintiff, v. Centegra Health System, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00018 (N.D. Ill.), continuing the
hearing on Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 19, 2017,
Plaintiff's motion for leave to exceed page limit is granted.
Appearance on April 25 is not required to present these two
motions. At the request of the parties, Defendant has until June 6
to file a response to the motion for conditional certification.
Defendant is granted leave to exceed the 15-page limit when
responding to the motion. Plaintiff then has until June 27 to file
a reply thereto. These deadlines are firm.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h5ZJd17z


CERNER CORP: Crawford Seeks to Certify Analysts Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CRAWFORD, R. individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CERNER
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00015-RK (W.D. Mo.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class
of:

   "all Technical Solution and/or Support Analysts (TSAs)
   employed in Cerners AMS or SolutionWorks Organizations within
   the past 3 years".

The Plaintiff additionally asks for an order requiring issuance of
the notice as proposed in this motion to the putative class
members.

The Plaintiff and the putative class members were all employed by
Cerner as TSAs. All class members performed similar job duties,
were admittedly classified by Cerner as exempt from overtime
compensation, and worked in excess of forty hours per week. At
this early stage of litigation, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
that she and putative class members are similarly situated for the
purpose of conditional certification and notice, and respectfully
requests that his motion be granted.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 876 2600
          Facsimile: (816) 221 8763
          E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

          Jason Knutson, Esq.
          Breanne L. Snapp, Esq.
          HABUSH HABUSH & ROTTIER, S.C.
          150 East Gilman St., Suite 2000
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 255 6663
          Facsimile: (608) 255 0745
          E-mail: jknutson@habush.com
                  bsnapp@habush.com


CHICAGO, IL: RCP Publications Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RCP PUBLICATIONS INC., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF
CHICAGO, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-11398 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "Persons or Entities Who Were Ticketed for Violation of
      section 10-8-320 of the Chicago Municipal Code During the
      Class Period"; and

   2. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yP8dut1F

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
           LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
           5707 W. Goodman Street
           Chicago, IL 60630
           Telephone: (847) 361 3869

                - and -

           Mark G. Weinberg., Esq.
           LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG
           3612 N. Tripp Ave.
           Chicago, IL 60641
           Telephone: (773) 283 3913


CIGNA HEALTH: Welp Seeks to Certify of Classes & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEVEN WELP, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the PLAINTIFFS, v. CIGNA HEALTH AND
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, NEXTERA ENERGY, INC., NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.
EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN, AND THE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 9:17-cv-80237-
DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order to
certify these classes and subclasses:

Cigna Class:

   "all persons who are covered under any contract or plan of
   health insurance that is administered, underwritten or insured
   by Cigna that insures behavioral or mental health care that
   categorically excludes coverage for outdoor behavioral
   (wilderness) therapy";

NextEra Class:

   "all persons who are covered under a NextEra Plan that
   categorically excludes coverage for outdoor behavioral
   (wilderness) therapy";

Cigna Sub-Class:

   "all persons who are covered under any contract or plan of
   health insurance that is administered, underwritten or insured
   by Cigna that insures behavioral or mental health care and
   whose claim for coverage for outdoor behavioral (wilderness)
   therapy was denied because the contract or plan excluded such
   coverage"; and

NextEra Sub-Class:

   "all persons who are covered under the NextEra Plan and whose
   claim for coverage for outdoor behavioral (wilderness) therapy
   was denied because the contractor plan excluded such
   coverage".

The case involves the intersection of the federal Mental Health
Parity and Addiction Equity Act and outdoor behavioral therapy.
The Act, enacted in 2008, requires that insurance coverage
limitations applicable to mental-health benefits are "no more
restrictive than the predominant treatment limitations applied to
substantially all medical and surgical benefits covered by the
plan (or coverage); and (2) "there are no separate treatment
limitations that are applicable only with respect to [mental-
health benefits]".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=I8JpWNmA

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan Lewis, Esq.
          JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
          4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
          Telephone: (954) 616 8995
          Facsimile: (954) 206 0374
          E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, N.Y. 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447 7060
          Facsimile: (800) 922 4851
          E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

Attorneys for Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company:

          Waldemar J. Pflepsen Jr., Esq.
          Michael A. Valerio, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS
          1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
          Suite 400 West
          Washington, DC 20007-5208
          E-mail: WPflepsen@carltonfields.com
                  mvalerio@carltonfields.com

Attorneys for NextEra Energy, Inc., NextEra Energy Inc. Employee
Health and Welfare Plan, and the Employee Benefit Plans
Administrative Committee:

          Charles L. Schlumberger, Esq.
          SENIOR LITIGATION COUNSEL
          FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
          700 Universe Boulevard
          Juno Beach, Florida 33408
          E-mail: Charles.Schlumberger@fpl.com


CITIZEN'S TAXI: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DANIEL MARTINEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CITIZEN'S TAXI DISPATCH, INC., and PATRICIA SHELTON, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10389 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks
that the Court:

   1. order conditional certification of the action as a
      representative collective action pursuant to Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA), on behalf of all of the Defendants'
      drivers from three years from the date of notice;

   2. order court-facilitated notice;

   3. order Defendants to produce a list in electronic format of
      all persons who have provided driving services for
      Defendants for the past three years preceding the issuance
      of notice. The list shall contain their last known address,
      email, telephone number, and dates of employment; and

   4. authorize Plaintiff to send notice, at Plaintiff's expense,
      by U.S. First Class Mail, email, and text to all members of
      the FLSA Class to inform them of their right to opt-in to
      this lawsuit.

The lawsuit arises, in part, under the FLSA, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. In a
nutshell, the FLSA claim alleges that the Defendants misclassified
Plaintiff and other similarly situated drivers as "independent
contractors" when they are properly characterized as employees
under both statutory and common law. Defendants' uniform policies,
practices, and procedures that resulted in all drivers being
improperly classified as independent contracts shows that
conditional certification is appropriate. Plaintiff moves for the
Court to conditionally certify the action as a representative
pursuant to FLSA, and to allow the below-procedures to properly
notify the class of the lawsuit against Defendants.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=m4gIyFRB

                 Class Certification Bid Continued

Judge Kim entered an order continuing Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification.  According to the docket entry made by
the Clerk on April 19, 2017, appearance on April 25 is not
required to present this motion. The court indicated it wishes to
review the pending motion to dismiss first and issue a briefing
schedule on the conditional certification motion at a later time
if simultaneous briefing and ruling on the motion to dismiss is
appropriate.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East 5th Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355 7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778 0400

               - and -

          Quinton Osborne, Esq.
          OSBORNE EMPLOYMENT LAW LLC
          799 Roosevelt Road, Suite 3-201
          Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
          Telephone: (331) 702 1538
          Facsimile: (331) 465 0450
          E-mail: Quinton@OsborneEmploymentLaw.com


CMRE FINANCIAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled NESTI THOMOLLARI, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CMRE FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00533-NJ (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay the class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p3bIBMI9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


COIL CHEM: Court Granted Conditional Certification in "Cooper"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ALAN COOPER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COIL CHEM, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00473-D (W.D. Okla.), the Hon
Timothy DeGiusti entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
      of:

      "field operators performing completions work employed by
       Coil Chem, LLC at any time between three years prior to
       April 25, 2017 and the present who were paid a salary and
       a job bonus.

   2. directing parties to confer and submit a revised Notice of
      Lawsuit in accordance with this Order within seven days;

   3. directing Defendant to provide Plaintiff's counsel, in
      computer readable format, the following information
      regarding all putative class members: full name; last known
      address(es) with city, state, and zip Code; any last known
      e-mail address(es) (non-company address if applicable);
      last known telephone number(s); beginning date(s) of
      employment; and ending date(s) of employment (if
      applicable);

   4. directing Plaintiff to send a copy of the Court-approved
      notice and consent form to the putative class members by
      First Class U.S. Mail and by email; and

   5. denying Plaintiff's emergency motion for protective order
      prohibiting Ex Parte Communications With Plaintiffs and
      Class Members.

The Court said, "Plaintiff alleges Defendant has contacted
putative class members and encouraged them to settle their cases
by executing a release. On the present record, the Court finds
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Defendant's
communications with the putative class members were misleading or
coercive. The record does not show any misconduct by Defendant,
its counsel or any other evidence to support Plaintiff's
contention that Defendant's actions deterred putative class
members from participating in the collective action. Defendant's
release does not willfully conceal any material information from
putative class members. It concisely and accurately provides
putative class members with basic information about the existence
of a dispute and the nature of the issues therein. Nor is there
any evidence Defendant threatened, intimidated or influenced any
putative class members' decision to sign the document. Therefore,
an order limiting communications between putative class members
and Defendant is not warranted at this time. However, any type of
communication with opt-in plaintiffs that is misleading, coercive
or otherwise undermines the Court's approved notice may result in
further action by the Court".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fRODdN46


COLLECTION ASSOCIATES: Bid for Class Certification Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ENEIDA JOHNSON, the Plaintiff, v.
COLLECTION ASSOCIATES LTD, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00124-
LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. District Judge Lynn Adelman entered an
order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motions to stay her class
      certification motion and for relief from the court's local
      rules; and

   2. staying Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff brought the putative class action, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
sections 1692-1692p. To prevent defendant from mooting the action,
plaintiff moves for class certification and to stay that motion.
See Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled on other grounds by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796
F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez,
136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6J5ePEIt


COLLECTO INC: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MARY HEPFNER, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COLLECTO, INC.
d/b/a EOS CCA, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00530-NJ (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay the class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Gives More Info on FairPoint Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
In response to an injunction entered in connection with the Vento
Action, Consolidated Communications Holdings Inc. filed a Form 8-K
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2017, to
provide additional disclosures in connection with the proposed
merger with FairPoint Communications, Inc.

On March 3, 2017, an alleged class action complaint was filed by a
purported stockholder of Consolidated in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware captioned Vento v. Currey, et al. (Case No.
2017-0157) against the members of Consolidated's board of
directors (the "Delaware Action"). The Delaware Action relates to
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated December 3, 2016, between
Consolidated, Falcon Merger Sub, Inc., a newly formed Delaware
corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Consolidated, 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
Delaware Action alleges that the members of Consolidated's board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
soliciting approval of Consolidated's stockholders of the issuance
of Consolidated's common stock to stockholders of FairPoint in the
merger (the "Merger") contemplated by the Merger Agreement (the
"Consolidated Stockholder Vote") because Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by Consolidated on
February 24, 2017, of which the joint proxy statement of
Consolidated and FairPoint, which also constitutes a prospectus of
Consolidated, filed by Consolidated with the SEC pursuant to Rule
424(b)(3) on February 24, 2017 (the "Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus") forms a part, failed to disclose allegedly
material information relating to the retention, compensation and
financial incentives of a financial advisor to Consolidated in
connection with the proposed Merger.

On March 14, 2017, the plaintiff in the Delaware Action filed a
motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the Consolidated
Stockholder Vote until such time as certain information concerning
the financial interests of Consolidated's financial advisor in the
proposed Merger are fully disclosed.

On March 22, 2017, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
issued a letter decision stating that it will preliminarily enjoin
the Consolidated Stockholder Vote (the "Injunction") until five
days after such time as Consolidated has supplemented its
disclosures to include a clear and direct explanation of the
amount of financing-related fees that Consolidated's financial
advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, or any of its affiliates stands
to receive in connection with the Merger if the Merger is
consummated.

In response to the Injunction, in order to provide a clear and
direct explanation of the amount of financing-related fees that
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC or any of its affiliates stands to
receive in connection with the Merger, and to provide additional
information to its stockholders, Consolidated has determined to
supplement the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus as described in
this Current Report on Form 8-K at a time and in a manner that
would not cause any delay of the special meeting of Consolidated's
stockholders, which was scheduled to be held on March 28, 2017, or
the Merger.

In the Form 8-K, the Company said that under the terms of its
engagement letter, Morgan Stanley provided the Consolidated Board
with financial advisory services and a financial opinion in
connection with the Merger and Consolidated has agreed to pay
Morgan Stanley a transaction fee of $13 million, which is payable
upon and is contingent upon the consummation of the Merger.
Consolidated has also agreed to reimburse Morgan Stanley for its
reasonable expenses incurred from time to time in connection with
providing its professional services, including reasonable fees of
outside counsel and other professional advisors incurred in
performing its services.


CONSTELLIUM NV: Continues to Defend Class Suit by Retirees/Union
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellium N.V. continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit initiated by five retirees and the United Steelworkers
union, according to the Company's March 21, 2017, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

During the third quarter of 2012, the Company implemented certain
plan amendments that had the effect of reducing benefits of the
participants in the Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood Retiree
Medical and Life Insurance Plan. In February 2013, five
Constellium retirees and the United Steelworkers union filed a
class action lawsuit against Constellium Rolled Products
Ravenswood, LLC in a federal district court in West Virginia,
alleging that Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC
improperly modified retiree health benefits.

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

The Company believes that these claims are unfounded, and that
Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC had a legal and
contractual right to make the applicable modification.

Constellium N.V. designs and manufactures a broad range of
innovative specialty rolled and extruded aluminium products,
serving primarily the packaging, aerospace and automotive end-
markets.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Paci" Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge John Robert Blakey entered an order in the lawsuit
titled EMIGUELA PACI, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00094 (N.D. Ill.), dismissing
case for lack of jurisdiction, terminating all pending motions,
and vacating all set dates.

The Court said, "Paci and Costco have both moved for summary
judgment. Because Paci lacks Article III standing, however, the
Court may not reach the parties' summary judgment arguments, and
the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. For present
purposes, the Court need not attempt to delineate the precise
scope of what constitutes "real-world harm" under Meyers to
establish standing for the statutory violation alleged here. It is
enough to note that, on these specific facts, merely having to put
a receipt in a file cabinet rather than a box does not constitute
actual harm for standing purposes; nor does having to save a
receipt that would ordinarily have been thrown out. Like Meyers,
Paci immediately discovered that her receipt displayed more than
it should have and she retained the receipt at all times. Like
Meyers, Paci has failed to show that she suffered any harm, or any
actual increased risk of injury, because the receipt in this case
violated FACTA's truncation requirement. Indeed, in light of
Meyers, this is not a close case. Paci has failed to articulate
any harm caused by the printing of the extra digits on her
receipt. She did not testify that the change in her receipt-
handling routine cost her anything in terms of time, expense or
emotional distress; there is no evidence that her identity was
ever at risk of being stolen and nothing to show that she ever
even fretted about her identity being stolen as a result of the
alleged FACTA violation. Because Paci has failed to offer any
evidence to support a finding of actual harm, the Court finds that
she lacks standing to sue".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Elqh9ltG


CSW INC: Davis, et al. Seek Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Daunte Davis, Kendall Holmes, Dwayne Morgan,
Marques Stewart, Clint Robinson, Paul Robinson, Michael Owens,
Marques Stewart, and Cornelius Buford, On behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, CSW Inc., and
Northern Concrete Construction Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-01283-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to:

   a. grant their motion for conditional certification;

   b. authorize the sending of class notices and consent forms
      for the travel pay class, and for the overtime computation
      claim class.

   c. require the Defendants to provide to the Plaintiffs an
      electronic list of names and addresses of class members
      within 10 days of the entering of this order; and

   d. grant to the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as
      the Court deems just and proper.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3kVnUSg5

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 W Wisconsin Ave, Suite 100 MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271 4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271 6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com


CVS PHARMACY: "Lowe" Plaintiffs May File Modified Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John Z. Lee entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
Carl Lowe, et al., the Plaintiff, v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-03687 (N.D. Ill.), granting
Plaintiffs' motion to file instanter the modified public version
of their motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 21, 2017,
the previously filed public version is stricken as moot. No
appearance is required on the motion.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dJ3Ltwyz


DIM SUM VILLA: "Lin" Suit Seeks to Certify Tipped Employees Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JIAN CHANG LIN, on behalf of himself and
other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIM SUM
VILLA LLC., d/b/a DIM SUM VILLA, EMILY KEI, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-05626-CCC-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for conditional collective certification of:

   "all tipped employees including but not limited to waiters,
   waitresses, servers, and delivery person employed by
   Defendants (Covered Employees) within the last three years
   (FLSA).

The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendants seeking unpaid
minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL). The complaint
alleges that Defendants: (1) failed to pay Covered Employees the
proper minimum wages under the FLSA and NJWHL; and (2) failed to
pay Covered Employees the proper overtime premiums in violation of
the NJWHL.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keli Liu, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353 6288


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Denied Class Certification as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RONDA L. DAVIS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:10-cv-01564-RC (D.
D.C.), the Hon. District Judge Rudolph Contreras entered an order:

   1. granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and

   2. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6PqX8nKN


EKF DIAGNOSTICS: Dr. Sartin Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DR. BARRY SARTIN, the Plaintiff, v. EKF
DIAGNOSTICS, INC. & STANBIO LABORATORY, L.P., the Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01816-SSV-JCW (E.D. La.), Dr. Sartin asks the Court
to:

   1. certify a class of:

      "all persons and entities, who within four years of the
      filing of this Complaint, received facsimile transmissions
      sent by Defendants with content that discusses, describes,
      promotes products and/or services offered by Defendants,
      and does not contain the opt-out notice required by 47
      U.S.C. par. 227(b)(1)(C)(iii), (b)(2)(D), (b)(2)(E),
      (d)(2) or 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)-(vii)."

   2. appoint Plaintiff, Dr. Barry W. Sartin, M.D., as the class
      representative; and

   3. appoint Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile,
      Hayes, L.L.P. as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=frva3BFd

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George B. Recile, Esq.
          Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
          Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
          Matthew A. Sherman, Esq.
          Patrick R. Follette, Esq.
          Barry W. Sartin, Jr., Esq.
          CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY,
          RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
          One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 833 5600
          Facsimile: (504) 833 8080


ELRON ELECTRONIC: Awaits OK of $1.1-Mil. Shareholder Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. awaits court approval of its $1.1
million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by
Elscint shareholders, according to the Company's March 21, 2017,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In November 1999, a number of shareholders of Elscint filed a
claim in the District Court of Haifa, together with a request to
approve certain causes of action set out in the claim, as a class
action on behalf of the public shareholders of Elscint, and a
request for certain causes of action to be treated as a derivative
action against various defendants, including Elscint, Elbit
Imaging, Elron and Europa Israel to which Elron sold its holdings
in Elbit Imaging in May 1999, and certain officers in the
defendant companies. The claim alleges, mainly, that Elbit Imaging
is duty bound to make a tender offer for the shares of Elscint
held by the public and that it unlawfully refuses to do so and, in
addition, it raises allegations of preference of the interests of
the defendants over those of Elscint and its public shareholders
with respect to a number of transactions involving Elscint that
the plaintiffs allege discriminated against Elscint's public
shareholders.

In June 2007 the plaintiffs submitted to the Haifa District Court
an updated statement of claim and request to approve the claim as
a class action. The updated claim claimed compensation for damages
sustained due to the alleged failure to effect the tender offer,
but no longer sought an order compelling the tender offer. The
updated statement of claim does not specify the monetary amount
claimed, but did include various allegations relating to the
manner of determining the damages claimed.

The Haifa District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' request to
approve the claim as a class action but the plaintiffs appealed
and in May 2012 the Supreme Court handed down a judgment in which
it partially accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiffs regarding
the District Court's rejection of the motion to approve their
claim as a "class action" against the various defendants including
the Company. In the said judgment, it was determined, inter alia,
that the motion for approval of the claim as a "class action" was
accepted with some modifications and directions as to the conduct
of the proceeding as detailed in the judgment and the case was
returned to the District Court to conduct the claim as a "class
action" against all of the defendants, including the Company and
its former officers as detailed in the said judgment. The main
cause of action alleged against the Company is minority oppression
of the minority shareholders of Elscint, such that control of
Elscint was sold to someone who is anticipated to exploit the
assets of the company in an unequal manner ("Sabotage Sale"). The
Company denies the allegations against it in the action.

On February 9, 2016, a request was submitted to the District Court
pursuant to which agreement was reached on a partial settlement
agreement (between all the plaintiffs and all the defendants
except the Company and the group of directors on its behalf). The
actual settlement agreement has not been submitted to the District
Court since, according to the above application, the parties are
required to exhaust other approval proceedings regarding the
participation of the insurers. The position of the plaintiffs as
presented to the District Court by their legal representatives
after the submission of the above request is that the cause of
action against the Company and the group of directors on its
behalf is separate from the causes of action against the other
defendants and therefore -- as long as the Company and the group
of directors on its behalf do not join the settlement, the
plaintiffs are continuing the proceedings between the plaintiffs
and the Company and the group of directors on its behalf.

The Company said: "On January 11, 2017, we filed in court, a
complementary settlement agreement signed by plaintiffs, us and
former directors of Elron pursuant to which our liability to the
plaintiffs will not exceed NIS 4.25 million (approximately $1.1
million), which includes compensation to the plaintiffs, costs and
contribution to attorney fees. The complementary settlement
agreement is subject to court approval and there is no assurance
that such approval will be obtained or that the settlement
agreement will be approved in the specific wording submitted."

"We have made a provision in our financial statements to cover the
amount set forth in the settlement agreement, which according to
the estimation of our management, based, inter alia, on the
opinion of our legal advisors, is sufficient to cover the
financial resources that may be required of us in order to expunge
the claim, if any."

Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. is an operational holding company
that focuses on building and enhancing technology companies,
mainly in the fields of medical devices, cyber security,
information technology (IT) and enterprise software.  The
Company's current group companies include companies at different
stages of development and business maturation, operating mainly in
these fields.


EMBRAER SA: Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in
New York remains pending, Embraer S.A. said in its Form 20-F filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In August 2016, a putative securities class action was filed in a
U.S. court against the Company and certain of its former and
current executives. In October 2016, a federal Court in New York
appointed a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel for the putative
class action. In December 2016, lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint seeks to bring claims on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Embraer securities during the period from January 11, 2012 through
and including November 28, 2016 asserting violations of the U.S.
federal securities laws relating to internal investigations and
related issues. The Court has not yet issued a briefing schedule
for the motion to dismiss and other procedural aspects of the
case.

So far, the Company believes that there is no adequate base to
estimate provisions related to this matter.

Embraer S.A. is the leading manufacturer of jets of 70 to 130
seats in the world, based on 2016 revenue arising from sales of
commercial aircraft.  Around 100 airlines from over 60 countries
are flying the Company's commercial jet aircraft on five
continents.  The Company's customers include some of the largest
and most significant network, regional and low cost carriers in
the world.


EMERY FEDERAL: 2nd Amended Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled FRANK A. AND SHELLY PALOMBARO, the
Plaintiffs, v. EMERY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, the Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-00792-SJD-KLL (S.D, Ohio), the Plaintiffs submitted their
Second Amended Motion for Class Certification with redacted copies
of exhibits.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QGucvO4k

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory M. Utter, Esq.
          Melissa A. Schaub, Esq.
          Keating Muething & Klekamp, PLL
          1 East Fourt Street, Suite 1400
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 579 6540
          Facsimile: (513) 579 6457
          E-mail: gmutter@kmklaw.com
                  mschaub@kmklaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
          Melissa L. English, Esq.
          SMITH GILDEA & SCHMIDT
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 821 0070
          Facsimile: (410) 821 0071
          E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
                  menglish@sgs-law.com

               - and -

          Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
          Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
          JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (301) 220 2200
          Facsimile: (301) 220 1214
          E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
                  vnannis@jgllaw.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Williams Seeks to Certify Consumers Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROSS WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ENHANCED
RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00545-VAB (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
Order certifying a class of:

   "all consumers with an address in the State of Connecticut (2)
   who were mailed a Collection Letter by the Defendant, from
   April 6, 2015 to the present, (3) in an attempt to collect an
   obligation owed to or allegedly owed to DirectTV, (4) that
   contained a 30-day Validation Notice, (5) along with the
   statement that "DirecTV has placed your previously disputed
   account with ERC. As of the date on this notice, an
   investigation of your dispute has been completed and the
   account has been placed with our office for resolution"."

The Plaintiff filed the complaint averring that the Defendant
violated Sections 1692e and 1692g of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).

The FDCPA requires debt collectors to provide debtors with a
30-day Validation Notice. That Notice must be clearly and
unambiguously conveyed, and may not be overshadowed or
contradicted by accompanying messages from the debt collector.

The only issue presented in this action is whether this quoted
language would have confused or misled the least sophisticated
consumer as to their rights set forth in the 30-day Validation
Notice. This is a legal issue that is identical across the
putative class, the lawsuit claims.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EXCVx41v

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


EXCEL STAFFING: Ferebee Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled TYRONN FEREBEE, on Behalf of Himself and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXCEL
STAFFING SERVICE, INC. et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00008-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Terrence W. Boyle entered an order
allowing Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of
collective action.

The class is defined as:

   "all current and former Nurses (RNs, LPNs, and CNAs)
   classified as independent contractors who worked for
   defendants Excel Staffing Service, Inc., Contractors &
   Consultants, Inc., Excel Staffing Professional Nursing, Inc.,
   David Tolin, or Frederick Tolin at any location throughout the
   United States from three years prior to the date of entry of
   this order to the present".

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the decision of United
States Magistrate Judge Gates entered November 18, 2016, is
affirmed. The parties are further ordered to meet and confer and
to jointly submit a revised proposed class notice as well as any
proposed protective order within 2) days of the date of entry of
this order.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that
defendants misclassify their workers as independent contractors
instead of as employees and in doing so deny those workers
overtime pay to which they are entitled under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act
(NCWHA). Defendants Excel Staffing Service, Contractors and
Consultants, and Excel Staffing Professional Nursing are alleged
to operate a staffing company which provides registered nurses
(RNs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs), and certified nursing
assistants (CNAs) to medical care facilities in multiple sates,
including North Carolina, Texas.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zjkxo2gD


EXPRESS COURIER: Harris et al. Seek to Certify Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JAMES HARRIS, RICK KETCHAM and ADAM
MANSKE, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Case No. 5:16-cv-5033-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to grant a motion for final certification of collective
action.

The Plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. Code Ann.
section 11-4-201, et seq. (AMWA), for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs,
and a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of Defendant's failure
to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated minimum and
overtime wages as required by the FLSA and AMWA.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RQtFrk2k

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua West, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: west@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kerri E. Kobbeman, Esq.
          CONNER & WINTERS, LLP
          4375 N. Vantage Dr., Ste. 405
          Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703
          Telephone: (479) 582-5711
          Facsimile: (479) 587-1426
          E-mail: KKobbeman@cwlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Butcher, Esq.
          Adam C. Smedstad, Esq.
          Emily A. Quillen, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT,
          HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          1850 M Street, N.W., Suite 280
          Washington, DC 20036-5804
          Telephone: (202) 551 9030
          Facsimile: (202) 296 9433
          E-mail: abutcher@scopelitis.com
                  asmedstad@scopelitis.com
                  equillen@scopelitis.com


FEDERATED SECURITIES: "Simai" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Dr. David Simai on behalf of plaintiff and
the class, the Plaintiff, v. FEDERATED SECURITIES, INC., and JOHN
DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02283 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of:

   (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior
   to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on
   behalf of defendant Federated Securities, Inc., advertising or
   promoting its goods or services for sale.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that he be appointed class
representative and that Tiffany N. Hardy of Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC and Adam J. Fishbein be appointed counsel
for the class.

Dr. David Simai brings this action to secure redress for the
actions of defendant Federated Securities, Inc., in sending or
causing the sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone
facsimile machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tB1208zU

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com

               - and -

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


FEDEX CORP: Wins Final OK of Settlement in Arkansas Suit vs. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A court granted final approval to a settlement resolving a case in
Arkansas against a subsidiary of FedEx Corporation, according to
the Company's March 22, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended February
28, 2017.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is involved in class-action
lawsuits (including 21 that have been certified as class actions),
individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative
proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators under a
contractor model no longer in use should have been treated as
employees, rather than independent contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December
13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all
outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the
owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee). In
sum, the court ruled on the Company's summary judgment motions and
entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20 of
the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as
class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases
were contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states. The
plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases. The
Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January
2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a
determination with respect to the correctness of the district
court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to the
Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the
plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage
Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh
Circuit were stayed.

On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20
factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas
Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class
members were employees, not independent contractors. The case was
subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both
parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete
the resolution of the appeals. The parties also made
recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19
cases that are before the Seventh Circuit. FedEx Ground requested
that each of those cases be separately briefed given the potential
differences in the applicable state law from that in Kansas. On
July 8, 2015, the Seventh Circuit issued an order and opinion
confirming the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court, concluding
that the class members were employees, not independent
contractors. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit referred the other
19 cases to a representative of the court for purposes of setting
a case management conference to address briefing and argument for
those cases.

During the second quarter of 2015, the Company established an
accrual for the estimated probable loss in the Kansas case. In the
second quarter of 2016 the Kansas case settled, and the Company
increased the accrual to the amount of the settlement. The
settlement requires court approval.

During the third quarter of 2016, the Company reached agreements
in principle to settle all of the 19 cases on appeal in the
multidistrict independent contractor litigation. All of these
settlements require court approval. The Company recognized a
liability for the expected loss (net of recognized insurance
recovery) related to these cases and certain other pending
independent-contractor-related proceedings of $204 million.

The Kansas case was remanded to the multidistrict litigation
court, and the other 19 cases remain at the Seventh Circuit;
however, approval proceedings will be conducted primarily by the
multidistrict litigation court. Plaintiffs filed motions for
preliminary approval between June 15 and June 30, 2016, and on
August 3 and 4, 2016, the multidistrict litigation court issued
orders indicating that it would grant preliminary approval if the
Seventh Circuit would remand the cases on appeal for the purpose
of entering approval orders. Upon the parties' joint motion, the
Seventh Circuit remanded the cases for this purpose on August 10,
2016, and the multidistrict litigation court entered orders
preliminarily approving the settlements on August 17, 2016.
Fairness hearings were previously scheduled for January 23 and 24,
2017, but were held on March 13 and 14, 2017. On March 15, 2017,
the court issued orders indicating that it would grant final
approval of each settlement if the Seventh Circuit remands the
cases on appeal for the purpose of considering and granting final
approval.

The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Seven
of these matters settled for immaterial amounts and have received
court approval.

The case in Arkansas settled in the second quarter of 2016, and
the Company established an accrual for the amount of the
settlement. The court held a final approval hearing on March 1,
2017, and granted final approval on March 6, 2017.

                         California Case

The case in California was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, where the court reversed the district court decisions and
held that the plaintiffs in California were employees as a matter
of law and remanded the cases to the district court for further
proceedings. In the first quarter of 2015, the Company recognized
an accrual for the then-estimated probable loss in this case.

In June 2015, the parties in the California case reached an
agreement to settle the matter for $228 million, and in the fourth
quarter of 2015 the Company increased the accrual to that amount.
The court entered final judgment on June 20, 2016, and two
objectors to the settlement filed appeals with the Ninth Circuit.
One objector has settled with plaintiffs' counsel, and the Company
expects the appeal by the second objector to be briefed by the end
of the fourth quarter of 2017 and arguments to be scheduled
thereafter. The settlement is not effective until all appeals have
been resolved without affecting the court's approval of the
settlement.

In addition, the Company is defending contractor-model cases that
are not or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation.
These cases are in varying stages of litigation. The Company does
not expect to incur a material loss in these matters; however, it
is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these
lawsuits or changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx
Ground's owner-operators could be material. In these cases, the
Company continues to evaluate what facts may arise in the course
of discovery and what legal rulings the courts may render and how
these facts and rulings might impact the loss. For a number of
reasons, the Company is not currently able to estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss in these cases. The number and identities
of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain, as they are
dependent on how the class of drivers is defined and how many
individuals will qualify based on whatever criteria may be
established. In addition, the parties have conducted only very
limited discovery into damages in certain of these cases, which
could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff and be
dependent on evidence pertaining to individual plaintiffs, which
has yet to be produced in the cases. Further, the range of
potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings
by the court, including on the merits of the claims, on FedEx
Ground's defenses, and on evidentiary issues. As a consequence of
these factors, as well as others that are specific to these cases,
the Company is not currently able to estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss. The Company does not believe that a
material loss is probable in these matters.

Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's
independent contractors could, among other things, entitle certain
owner-operators and their drivers to the reimbursement of certain
expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-hour laws and result in
employment and withholding tax and benefit liability for FedEx
Ground. The Company believes that FedEx Ground's owner-operators
are properly classified as independent contractors and that FedEx
Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the company's
independent contractors.

FedEx Corporation provides a broad portfolio of transportation, e-
commerce and business services through companies competing
collectively, operating independently and managed collaboratively,
under the respected FedEx brand.  The Company's primary operating
companies are Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx Express"), the
world's largest express transportation company; TNT Express B.V.
("TNT Express"), an international express, small-package ground
delivery and freight transportation company; FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground"), a leading North American provider
of small-package ground delivery services; and FedEx Freight, Inc.
("FedEx Freight"), a leading U.S. provider of less-than-truckload
("LTL") freight services.


FIFTH STREET: "Linde" Suit Now Closed After $9.25MM Deal Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The litigation in the securities lawsuit initiated by Ronald K.
Linde, et al., is now concluded after the Court approved the
parties' $9,250,000 settlement, Fifth Street Asset Management Inc.
said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 21, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2016.

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

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

On February 25, 2016, the court granted the Company's unopposed
motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, where the case could be
coordinated as appropriate with the securities class actions filed
by FSC shareholders. On April 22, 2016, the court appointed Kieran
and Susan Duffy as lead plaintiffs and the law firm of Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on June 13, 2016.

On March 7, 2016, the other putative class action by the Company's
shareholders was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The defendants were the same as in
the Linde case, and the complaint was a virtual clone of the
original Linde complaint. The Trupp plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed her case before lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were
appointed in the Linde case.

Following an agreed mediation, and as previously disclosed in the
Company's Form 8-K filed on August 4, 2016, the parties in the
Linde case signed an agreement to settle the action for
$9,250,000, which was covered by insurance proceeds. The proposed
settlement was subject to lead plaintiffs' completion of
additional discovery and approval by the court after notice has
been sent to the settlement class. Lead plaintiffs completed the
additional discovery and decided to proceed with the proposed
settlement. The parties submitted the proposed settlement to the
court on September 23, 2016, and asked the court to enter an order
certifying the putative class for settlement purposes, authorizing
dissemination of notice of the settlement to potential class
members, and scheduling a fairness hearing on the proposed
settlement. On November 9, 2016, the court entered the proposed
order and scheduled the fairness hearing for February 16, 2017.

The fairness hearing was held on February 16, 2017 and the
proposed settlement was approved. The litigation is now concluded.

Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. is an alternative asset manager
with approximately $4.7 billion of assets under management as of
December 31, 2016.  The funds that Fifth Street manages provide
innovative and flexible financing solutions to small and mid-sized
companies across their capital structures, primarily in connection
with investments by private equity sponsors.


FIFTH STREET: Says N.Y. Suit Now Closed After $14MM Deal Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities litigation in New York is now
concluded following approval of $14,050,000 settlement, Fifth
Street Asset Management Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "In October and November of 2015, we, our
executive officers and [Fifth Street Finance Corp.] were named as
defendants in three putative securities class-action lawsuits
filed in New York and Connecticut federal courts (and later
consolidated in New York). The lawsuits alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased FSC common
stock between July 7, 2014, and February 6, 2015. The lawsuits
alleged in general terms that defendants engaged in a purportedly
fraudulent scheme designed to artificially inflate the true value
of FSC's investment portfolio and investment income in order to
increase our revenue. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages
and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but did not
specify the amount of damages being sought. A lead plaintiff was
selected in February 2016, a consolidated complaint similar to the
original complaint was filed in April 2016, and a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint was filed in May 2016."

The parties agreed in July to settle the case for $14,050,000,
with approximately 99% of the settlement amount to be paid from
insurance coverage. Confirmatory discovery was completed in
August, and the lead plaintiff filed the proposed settlement with
the court in September. On November 9, 2016, the court authorized
the parties to send notice to the class and scheduled a fairness
hearing for February 16, 2017. No objections or opt-outs to the
settlement were received by the deadline. The fairness hearing was
held on February 16, 2017 and the proposed settlement was approved
and paid. The litigation is now concluded.

Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. is an alternative asset manager
with approximately $4.7 billion of assets under management as of
December 31, 2016.  The funds that Fifth Street manages provide
innovative and flexible financing solutions to small and mid-sized
companies across their capital structures, primarily in connection
with investments by private equity sponsors.


FLORIDA: Class Cert. Bid in Suit v. Seeger et al. Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOSEPH WITCHARD, the Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY
SEEGER, JEFFREY MORALES, J. PEREZ., DAVID KEITH and DON OLOLADE,
the Defendants, Case No. 6:14-cv-02042-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Thomas B. Smith entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for emergency relief or
      discharge from unlawful federal custody;

   2. granting Defendant Morales' motion for waiver of service,
      motion to be excused from paying costs of service, and
      motion for enlargement of time to respond to complaint;

   3. granting Defendant Perez's motion to quash service of
      process, and denying Defendant Perez's motion to dismiss
      for failure to state a claim or qualified immunity without
      prejudice;

   4. denying Plaintiff's motions for entry of clerk's default
      against Defendants Perez and Morales as moot;

   5. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
      motion for discovery on the issue of class action
      certification; and

   6. denying Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery or for
      sanctions without prejudice as premature. The Court has not
      yet directed the parties to conduct discovery.

The Court said, "Plaintiff states that he is entitled to discharge
from federal custody because he was illegally using an
unconstitutionally issued arrest warrant. The Court has reviewed
Plaintiff's motion and concludes that it does not raise any issues
warranting emergency status. Plaintiff is advised that he should
only use the term "emergency" in extraordinary circumstances, such
as when there is a true and legitimate emergency. When a pleading
is labeled as an emergency, the Court is compelled to immediately
divert its attention from other pending matters and to focus on
the "emergency." The present motion does not assert matters that
constitute an emergency, and Plaintiff is warned that he should
not label any future pleadings as an emergency unless there is a
true and legitimate emergency. Furthermore, Plaintiff's request
for release from incarceration is not properly filed in this case.
Plaintiff was warned on January 26, 2015 and again on June 9, 2015
that he may not pursue habeas corpus remedies in the instant civil
rights action. Plaintiff may seek release from incarceration by
filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a new case in the
appropriate court".

The Court accepts Defendant Morales' waiver of service of the
summons. Defendant Morales will not be required to pay the costs
of service. Additionally, Defendant Morales shall have 21 days
from the date of this Order to respond to the complaint. The Clerk
of Court shall send a Summons and Marshal's 285 Form to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff should complete these forms for Defendant Perez and mail
the completed forms to the Clerk's Office within 21 days from the
date of this Order. The failure to return the completed forms will
result in the dismissal of Defendant Perez from this action
without further notice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pDvm46k8


FLUIDMASTER INC: Court Denies Class Certification in "Sullivan"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Pat Sullivan, et al., the Plaintiff, v.
Fluidmaster, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-05696 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motions to
      exclude Defendant's experts;

   2. granting in part and denying Plaintiffs' motion to strike;

   3. granting in part and denying Defendant's motions to exclude
      Plaintiffs' experts; and

   4. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 31, 2017,
the Courtroom Deputy will contact the parties to arrange a
mutually agreeable time for the next status hearing before
Judge Dow and Magistrate Judge Gilbert, at which time the parties
may raise any issues regarding discovery, motions for
reconsideration, and future motion practice before either of the
assigned judges.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H85Mux5Y


FORSTER & GARBUS: Settlement in "Feliciano" Case Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled GINGER I. FELICIANO, on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated, and LYNN ANTISTA, Consolidated
Plaintiff Case. No. 2:15-cv-04338-CLW, the Plaintiffs, v. FORSTER,
GARBUS & GARBUS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-02496-CLW
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Cathy Waldor entered an order
certifying a Settlement Class of:

   "all Consumers who reside in the State of New Jersey to
   whom Forster, Garbus & Garbus mailed a written communication
   during the period beginning April 7, 2014, and ending June 24,
   2015, in an attempt to collect a debt on behalf of either
   Sallie Mae or LVNV Funding LLC, on a Credit One Bank credit
   card account which were mailed in a windowed envelope such
   that the file number or QR Code containing the file number
   associated with the Debt was visible from the outside of the
   envelope";

In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, FG&G shalt make
these payments:

   a. FG&G shall create a class settlement fund of $1,980.00
      ("Class Recovery"), from which the Settlement Administrator
      will distribute pro rota among those Class Members whose
      notice was not returned as undeliverable and who did not
      exclude themselves from the Settlement (Claimants).
      Claimants will receive a pro rota share of the Class
      Recovery by check. Checks issued to Claimants will be void
      60 days from the date of issuance. Any checks that have not
      been cashed by the void date, along with any unclaimed
      funds remaining in the Class Recovery, will be donated as a
      cypres award to The Center for Social Justice at Seton Hall
      School of Law.

   b. FG&G shall pay each Plaintiff $1,500.00.

   c. FG&G shall pay Class Counsel for their attorneys' fees and
      costs incurred in the action. Class Counsel shall not
      request additional fees or costs from FG&G or the Class
      Members.

Heffler Claims Group is the third-party settlement administrator.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z11BIkB5


FULENWIDER ENTERPRISES: Certification of FLSA Opt-in Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled HELEN HOLLAND, Individually, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated current
and former employees, the Plaintiffs, v. FULENWIDER ENTERPRISES,
INC., a North Carolina Corporation, PHOENIX TACO, L.L.C., a North
Carolina Limited Liability Company, MICHAEL FULENWIDER, an
Individual, TOM HIRUNPUGDI, an Individual, and ERSKINE WHITE, an
Individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00048-MOC-DLH
(W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an Order:

   1. conditionally certifying and approving notice to the
      following Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective class:

      "all current and former employees who were misclassified as
      exempt Assistant Managers or Assistant Unit Managers
      ("AUM") of Defendants' KFC, Taco Bell and Long John
      Silver's franchise restaurants located in the United States
      who work (or have worked) at said restaurants at any time
      during the applicable limitation's period covered by this
      Collective Action Complaint (i.e. two years for FLSA
      violations, three years for willful FLSA violations), up to
      and including the date of final judgment in this matter,
      and who is the Named Plaintiff and those who elect to opt-
      in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section
      216(b)".

   2. directing Defendants, within seven calendar days of this
      Court's order, to provide Plaintiff's counsel, in computer-
      readable electronic format, the names, job locations, dates
      of employment, mailing addresses, phone numbers and email
      addresses of all persons who are, have been, or will be
      employed by Defendant as AUMs at any time within the last
      three years;

   3. authorizing Plaintiff to mail and e-mail Plaintiff's
      proposed notice and consent forms to these putative class
      members; and

   4. approving a 90-day opt-in period in which putative class
      members may return their signed consent forms.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher R. Strianese, Esq.
          Tamara L. Huckert, Esq.
          STRIANESE PLLC
          401 North Tryon St., 10th Fl.
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 998 2577
          E-mail: chris@strilaw.com
                  tamara@strilaw.com
                  www.strilaw.com


GC SERVICES: Class Certification Bid in "O'Boyle" Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BARBARA O'BOYLE, the Plaintiff, v. GC
SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01384-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. District Judge Lynn Adelman
entered an order granting Plaintiff's motions to stay her class
certification motion.

The Court said, "Plaintiff brings this putative class action,
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. sections 1692-1692p. To prevent defendant from mooting the
action, plaintiff moves for class certification and to stay that
motion. See Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th
Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Chapman v. First Index,
Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). Plaintiff further moves for
relief from this court's local rules requiring that every motion
be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and imposing a briefing
schedule on the parties. Defendant has not opposed these motions."

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


GOOGLE INC: Free Range Suit Seeks Certification of Three Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled FREE RANGE CONTENT, INC., a California
corporation, COCONUT ISLAND SOFTWARE, INC., a Hawaii corporation,
TAYLOR CHOSE, a Minnesota resident, and MATTHEW SIMPSON, a British
Columbia, Canada resident, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC, a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:14-cv-02329-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for certification of these
classes:

First Class seeking declaratory relief for violations of Cal. Civ.
Code and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code:

   "all former or current Google AdSense publishers: (1) whose
   AdSense accounts were subject to Google's terms and conditions
   or terms of service for the U.S., Canada, American Samoa,
   Puerto Rico, United States Minor Outlying Islands, the U.S.
   Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas,
   Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Falkland
   Islands, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat,
   Netherland Antilles, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint
   Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, or the Turks
   and Caicos Islands (the locations at issue); (2) whose AdSense
   account Google disabled or terminated for any breach of
   contract, including policy violations or invalid activity, on
   any date between and including May 20, 2010, and the date of
   judgment in this matter; and (3) whose last AdSense program
   earnings or unpaid amounts Google withheld in their entirety,
   and permanently, in connection with such disablement or
   termination";

Second terms-and-conditions class seeking damages or restitution
for violations of Cal. Civ. Code par. 1671(b) and the UCL, as well
as breach of contract:

   "all former or current Google AdSense publishers: (1) whose
   AdSense accounts were subject to Google's terms and conditions
   for the locations at issue; (2) whose AdSense account Google
   disabled or terminated for any breach of contract, including
   policy violations or invalid activity, on any date between and
   including May 20, 2010, and April 22, 2013; and (3) whose last
   AdSense program earnings or unpaid amounts Google withheld in
   their entirety, and permanently, in connection with such
   disablement or termination; and

Third terms-of-service class seeking damages or restitution for
violations of Cal. Civ. Code par. 1671(b) and the UCL, breach of
contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing:

   "all former or current Google AdSense publishers: (1) whose
   AdSense accounts were subject to Google's terms of service for
   the locations at issue; (2) whose AdSense account Google
   disabled or terminated for any breach of contract, including
   policy violations or invalid activity, on any date between and
   including April 23, 2013, and the date of judgment in this
   matter; (3) whose last AdSense program earnings or unpaid
   amounts Google withheld in their entirety, and permanently, in
   connection with such disablement or termination; and (4) who
   submitted a written notice of dispute to Google within 30
   day".

Excluded from the proposed classes are Google's officers,
directors, managerial employees, and their immediate families, as
well as this Court and the Court's immediate family members.

Plaintiffs request that Free Range Content, Inc. (FRC), Coconut
Island Software, Inc. (CIS), Taylor Chose, and Matthew Simpson be
appointed class representatives for the Rule 23(b)(2) class; that
CIS be appointed for the Rule 23(b)(3) terms-and-conditions class,
and that FRC be appointed for the Rule 23(b)(3) terms-of-service
class. Also, plaintiffs request that Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP be appointed class counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7idAlmPE

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623 0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  robl@hbsslaw.com
                  jefff@hbsslaw.com


GRADE A: De Leon et al. Seek to Certify Employees Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Gabriel De Leon, Ramon Pena, and Jose Luis
Ramirez, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Grade A Construction Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00348-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs
move the Court to certify Named Plaintiff Jose Luis Ramirez as the
representative of a class of:

   "all current and former Grade A employees who either (1) as of
   May 26, 2016 was not paid at a rate equal to 1.5 times his
   straight time rate for all banked overtime hours worked
   between May 26, 2014 and April 25, 2016; and/or (2) was not
   paid at a rate equal to 1.5 times his straight time rate for
   all overtime hours worked after April 25, 2016, within 31 days
   of when the overtime was worked."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Rcl3S8Lf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271 4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271 6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com


GRANITE CITY FOOD: Koenig Seeks Conditional Collective Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CHELSEA KOENIG, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRANITE CITY FOOD
& BREWERY, LTD and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, the Defendant(s), Case No.
2:16-cv-01396-MAK (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an
order:

   1. granting conditional collective certification pursuant to
      the Fair Labor Standards Act

   2. approving issuance of Notice to all members of the putative
      Collective Class in accordance with Hoffman-La Roche v.
      Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989); and

   3. directing production by Defendants to Plaintiff of all
      names and addresses of members of the collective class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xA3mJROb

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322 9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231 0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  bsweet@carsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          Two Penn Center Plaza
          1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 792 6676
          Facsimile: (215) 792 6676
          E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com


GRANITE CITY FOOD: Koenig Seeks to Certify Tipped Employees Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHELSEA KOENIG, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRANITE CITY FOOD &
BREWERY, LTD and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, the Defendant(s), Case No.
2:16-cv-01396-MAK (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an
Order granting:

   1. certification of a Class consisting of:

      "all Tipped Employees (servers, bartenders, bussers, and/or
      food runners) who work/worked at Defendant's Pennsylvania
      location"; and

   2. issuance of Notice to all members of the proposed Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rjx8QLuB

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
          KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322 9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231 0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  bsweet@carsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          Two Penn Center Plaza
          1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 792 6676
          Facsimile: (215) 792 6676
          E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Rudel Suit Seeks to Certify Merchants Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RUDEL CORPORATION, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02229-
AET-LHG (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the Court before Hon.
Anne E. Thompson, on June 5, 2017, for an Order:

   1. certifying the following class:

      "Merchants who processed with Heartland and were charged an
      American Express Fee Adjustment in their October 2014
      account statements, retroactively implementing an increased
      American Express Discount Fee, and that Heartland charged
      that increased rate for transactions occurring between
      November 1, 2014 and December 15, 2014.

   2. appointing Plaintiff Rudel Corporation as Class
      Representative; and

   3. appointing the law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as Class
      Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nTVtQmy6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond Barto, Esq.
          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421 6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421 6553
          E-mail: STEPHEN@SFCLASSLAW.COM
                  RAYMOND@SFCLASSLAW.COM


HORIZON FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid in "Wandersee" Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANGIE WANDERSEE, the Plaintiff, v. HORIZON
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01176-LA
(E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. District Judge Lynn Adelman entered an
order granting Plaintiff's motions to stay the class certification
motion.

The Court said, "Plaintiff brings this putative class action,
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. sections 1692-1692p. To prevent defendant from mooting the
action, plaintiff moves for class certification and to stay that
motion. See Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th
Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by Chapman v. First Index,
Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). Plaintiff further moves for
relief from this court's local rules requiring that every motion
be accompanied by a supporting memorandum and imposing a briefing
schedule on the parties. Civil L. R. 7 (E.D. Wis.). Defendant has
not opposed these motions".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4sIQE5cj


ILLINOIS: Class Certification Bid in "Koss" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Joan B. Gottschall entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled Alma Koss, et al, the Plaintiff(s), v. Felicia F.
Norwood, et al, the Defendant(s), Case No. 1:17-cv-02762 (N.D.
Ill.), denied without prejudice as premature Plaintiff's motion
for class certification, in the interest of judicial economy.

The Court said, "Status hearing is set for June 23, 2017 at 9:30
AM. If, by the date of the scheduled status hearing defendants
have not been served, plaintiff should call the courtroom deputy
(312-435-5641) and reset the status date. No status hearing should
be held until the defendants have been served. Plaintiff is
directed to advise the defendant of the status hearing. See
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015).
Pursuant to LR 5.2(f), a stapled and/or bound paper copy of all
electronically filed documents, including the complaint, must be
delivered to chambers (2356) within one business day.
Noncompliance with LR 5.2(f) will result in the imposition of a
$200.00 fine payable to the Clerk of the Court, 219 South Dearborn
Street, 20th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Parties are directed
to discuss settlement and whether they consent to proceed before
the Magistrate Judge. They are further directed to meet and confer
regarding a proposed discovery plan. See Judge Gottschall's civil
case management information regarding pretrial case management
procedures at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov".

In January 2015, Governor Bruce Rauner appointed Ms. Norwood to
serve as the Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and
Family Services (HFS).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aY19twXH


INFUSYSTEM HOLDINGS: Expects Filing of Consolidated Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
InfuSystem Holdings, Inc., expects that the lead plaintiff in a
securities lawsuit commenced in California will file a
consolidated amended complaint that will be the operative
complaint going forward, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

As a result of the restatement of the Company's financial
statements as of December 31, 2015 and the first and second
quarter of 2016, the Company is currently involved in a class-
action lawsuit filed by shareholders. On November 8, 2016, a
purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(the "Court") (Case No. 2:16-cv-08295-ODW) against the Company and
two individual defendants: Eric Steen, the Company's current Chief
Executive Officer, President and director; and Jonathan Foster,
the Company's former Chief Financial Officer. The complaint
alleges that the defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements in and/or omitted material facts from documents filed
with the SEC between May 12, 2015 and November 7, 2016. The
complaint asserts claims against all defendants under the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and against
Messrs. Steen and Foster as control persons. The complaint seeks
compensatory damages for the putative class, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. Two other
shareholders subsequently filed motions for appointment as lead
plaintiff and for appointment of their attorneys as lead counsel
for the putative class.

On February 17, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff for the
putative class. The parties have entered into a stipulation,
adopted by the Court, pursuant to which it is expected that the
lead plaintiff will file a consolidated amended complaint that
will be the operative complaint going forward.

The Company says it has not determined that losses related to the
matters are probable. Because the allegations of the operative
complaint are not yet known, together with the inherent difficulty
of predicting the outcome of litigation generally, the Company
does not have sufficient information to determine the amount or
range of reasonably possible loss with respect to these matters.
The Company's assessments are based on estimates and assumptions
that have been deemed reasonable by management, but that may prove
to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and
circumstances may occur that might cause the Company to change
those estimates and assumptions. The Company and the individual
defendants intend to vigorously defend the claims asserted against
them in these matters, but there can be no assurances as to the
outcome for such matters.

Headquartered in Madison Heights, Michigan, InfuSystem Holdings,
Inc., is a Delaware corporation that operates through operating
subsidiaries, including InfuSystem Holdings USA, Inc., InfuSystem,
Inc., First Biomedical, Inc., a Kansas corporation.  The Company
is a provider of infusion pumps and related products and services
for patients in the home, oncology clinics, ambulatory surgery
centers, and other sites of care from five locations in the United
States and Canada.  The Company provides its products and services
to hospitals, oncology practices and facilities and other
alternate site health care providers.


INNOVAK INT'L: Bohannan Seeks Certification of Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MELISSA BOHANNAN, individually, and on
behalf of a similarly situated class, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
INNOVAK INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00272-WKW-WC (M.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for
certification of these class and subclasses:

Nationwide Class:

   "all persons whose personal private information (PPI) was
   compromised as a direct and proximate result of the Innovak
   Data Breach".

Alabama Subclass:

   "all persons in Alabama whose personal private information
   (PPI) was compromised as a direct and proximate result of the
   Innovak Data Breach; and

Mississippi Class:

   "all persons in Mississippi whose personal private information
   (PPI) was compromised as a direct and proximate result of the
   Innovak Data Breach.

Excluded from the Class are the (i) owners, officers, directors,
employees, agents, and/or representatives of Innovak
International, Inc. and its parent entities, subsidiaries,
affiliates, successors, and/or assigns, and (ii) the Court, Court
personnel, and members of their immediate families. Excluded from
these Subclasses are the (i) owners, officers, directors,
employees, agents, and/or representatives of Innovak
International, Inc. and its parent entities, subsidiaries,
affiliates, successors, and/or assigns, and (ii) the Court, Court
personnel, and members of their immediate families.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmermann, Esq.
          Anil A. Mujumdar, Esq.
          ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE
          2332 2nd Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 983 7985
          Facsimile: (888) 505 0523
          E-mail: fuli@zarzaur.com
                  anil@zarzaur.com

               - and -

          Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
          Christopher T. Hellums, Esq.
          PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS, PC
          2001 Park Place, Suite 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322 8880
          Facsimile: (205) 328 2711
          E-mail: pdh-efiling@pittmandutton.com
                  jonm@pittmandutton.com
                  chrish@pittmandutton.com


LAGASSE LLC: Motion for Class Certification Withdrawn
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ALPHA TECH PET, INC., a Massachusetts
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. LAGASSE, LLC,
ESSENDANT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, Illinois limited liability
companies, ESSENDANT CO., an Illinois corporation, UNITED
STATIONERS INC., a Delaware corporation and JOHN DOES 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00513 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. District
Judge. Thomas M. Durkin entered an order withdrawing a motion for
class certification.

The Defendants have stipulated that they will not make any offer
or tender to Plaintiff Alpha Tech Pet, Inc. individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
including but not limited to an offer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
68, or a deposit of the full amount of the Plaintiff's individual
claim in an account payable to the Plaintiff, without advance
notice to Plaintiff.

This stipulation does not preclude Defendants from serving an
offer or tender to Plaintiff in the following circumstances:

     (1) If Defendants send all counsel of record for Plaintiff an
e-mail notifying Plaintiff that Defendants intend to serve an
offer or tender on an individual basis, then Defendants may serve
such tender or offer beginning on the tenth day after the e-mail
notification was sent (but not before such time);

     (2) Defendants may serve an offer or tender on a class-wide
basis at any time.

In the event that the law or circumstances change, Defendants
reserve the right to assert that Plaintiff's and the class' claims
are moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H4uNAmpl


LUBY'S INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Woods" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOHN B. WOODS, a Texas citizen,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. LUBY'S, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-01146 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff moves for entry
of an order certifying a class of:

   "all persons to whom Luby's provided an electronically-printed
   receipt at the point of a sale or transaction after the
   applicable statutory deadline (after December 4, 2006 for
   machines in use before January 1, 2005 or immediately for
   machines first used after January 1, 2005) and which receipt
   displayed more than the last five digits of the purchaser's
   credit card or debit card number".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5Q5fKv71

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 658 5500
          Facsimile: 312 658 5555


MARATHON OIL: Baucum Seeks to Certify Advisors & Operators Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHANCE BAUCUM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARATHON OIL
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03278 (S.D. Tex.),
Baucum asks that the Court conditionally certify a class
consisting of:

   "all persons who worked for Marathon as HSE Advisors and/or
   Solids Control Operators who were classified as independent
   contractors and paid a "day-rate" at any time since three
   years prior to November 6, 2013, the filing date for the
   Complaint".

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant Marathon Oil Corporation,
regularly working more than twelve-hour days for weeks at a time.
Marathon paid Baucum for these long hours on a day-rate basis,
paying him a flat amount for all the hours that he worked in a
single day, even though day-rate workers are entitled to overtime
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Baucum's claims are
straightforward: Marathon's compensation plan for its day-rate
workers (including its HSE Advisors and Solids Control Operators)
violated the FLSA because it failed to pay these workers overtime.
Baucum seeks conditional certification under the FLSA and
authorization to send notice to other putative plaintiffs so that
they have opportunity to learn of (and potentially join) this
matter before their statutes of limitations expire.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 325 1100
          Facsimile: (713) 325 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  litkin@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


MARY JANE M. ELLIOTT: Buck Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SUSAN BUCK, ANITA BECKLEY, RUBY ROBINSON,
RITCHIE SWAGERTY, and DANIEL VANDERKODDE, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MARY JANE M.
ELLIOTT, P.C., BERNDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., ENCORE
CAPITAL GROUP, INC., and LVNV FUNDING LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00203-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move for an
order certifying classes and Subclasses:

Elliott Class:

   "(a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment,
   in a civil action to collect a debt incurred for personal,
   family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan
   court; (c) based on a claim for account stated, open account,
   and/or unjust enrichment, and not to enforce a written
   instrument or promissory note; (d) from whom Mary Jane M.
   Elliott, P.C. collected or attempted to collect a judgment
   balance, by communicating to any person that the judgment
   debtor owed an amount that included postjudgment interest,
   calculated at a rate greater than 1% plus the average interest
   rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States Treasury notes
   during the immediately preceding six months";

Berndt Class:

   "(a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment,
   in a civil action to collect a debt incurred for personal,
   family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan
   court; (c) based on a claim for account stated, open account,
   and/or unjust enrichment, and not to enforce a written
   instrument or promissory note; (d) from whom Berndt &
   Associates, P.C. collected or attempted to collect a judgment
   balance, by communicating to any person that the judgment
   debtor owed an amount that included postjudgment interest,
   calculated at a rate greater than 1% plus the average interest
   rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States Treasury notes
   during the immediately preceding six months";

Midland Subclass

   "(a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment,
   in a civil action to collection a debt incurred for personal,
   family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan court
   in favor of Midland Funding LLC; (c) based on a claim for
   account stated, open account, and/or unjust enrichment, and
   not to enforce a written instrument or promissory note; (d)
   from whom Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C. or Berndt & Associates,
   P.C. collected or attempted to collect a judgment balance, by
   communicating to any person that the judgment debtor owed an
   amount that included postjudgment interest, calculated at a
   rate greater than 1% plus the average interest rate paid at
   auctions of 5-year United States Treasury notes during the
   immediately preceding six months; and

LVNV Subclass:

   "(a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment,
   in a civil action to collection a debt incurred for personal,
   family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan court
   in favor of LVNV Funding LLC; (c) based on a claim for account
   stated, open account, and/or unjust enrichment, and not to
   enforce a written instrument or promissory note; (d) from
   whom Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C. or Berndt & Associates, P.C.
   collected or attempted to collect a judgment balance, by
   communicating to any person that the judgment debtor owed an
   amount that included postjudgment interest, calculated at a
   rate greater than 1% plus the average interest rate paid at
   auctions of 5-year United States Treasury notes during the
   immediately preceding six months".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Aw6lxUCz

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip C. Rogers, Esq.
          Kevin J. Rogers, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP C. ROGERS
          6140 28th Street SE, Suite 115
          Grand Rapids, MI 49546-6938
          Telephone: (616) 776 1176
          E-mail: ConsumerLawyer@aol.com
                   RogersAttorney@gmail.com

               - and -

          Theodore J. Westbrook, Esq.
          WESTBROOK LAW PLLC
          Attorney for Plaintiffs
          6140 28th Street SE, Suite 115
          Grand Rapids, MI 49546-6938
          Telephone: (616) 288 9548
          E-mail: twestbrook@westbrook-law.net


MATCH GROUP: "Perkins" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHAD PERKINS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MATCH GROUP,
INC., d/b/a OKCUPID, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02988 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all natural persons domiciled in the United States or its
   territories who, within the applicable statutes of limitation,
   paid Match Group amounts for its premium OkCupid "A-List"
   service during such time as a programming error, software
   malfunction, bug or similar factor caused the reported number
   of "likes" to exceed the actual number of persons who had
   liked the subscriber's profile".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WDeCi4Ih

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          SWEETNAM LLC
          100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757 1888
          E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com


MDL 2420: DPP and IPP Purchasers' Class Certification Bids Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation
Case No. 4:13-md-02420-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers entered an order:

   1. denying without prejudice IPP Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification on the grounds that they have failed to
      establish typicality and their ability to prove antitrust
      impact on a class-wide basis;

   2. denying without prejudice DPP Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification on the grounds that they have failed to
      establish typicality, adequacy, and their ability to prove
      antitrust impact on a class-wide basis;

   3. granting in part motion of Panasonic and Sanyo to strike
      the proposed expert testimony of Dr. Edward E. Leamer on
      the grounds that his analyses rely on too narrow a range of
      data;

   4. denying Motion of Panasonic and Sanyo to strike the
      proposed expert testimony of Dr. Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz;

   5. denying motion of Toshiba to strike certain testimony of
      DPP Expert Dr. Roger Noll on the grounds stated in the
      motion; and

   6. granting in part motion of Toshiba to strike certain
      proposed testimony of DPP Expert Mr. James L. Kaschmitter
      and the statements concerning the percentage of pack costs
      comprised of cell costs.

The case is an antitrust action which concerns two putative
plaintiff classes, indirect and direct purchasers, who allege a
multi-year, international price-fixing conspiracy among Japanese
and Korean manufacturers of lithium ion battery cells, as well as
their American subsidiaries. The putative class representatives
are denominated the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPPs) and the
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs, and collectively with the IPPs,
"Plaintiffs"). Both putative classes have filed motions for class
certification. In connection with those motions, defendants have
moved to strike or exclude certain expert reports.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CkFDkH0Y


MDL 2740: Bid to Certify Class Sought in Taxotere Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02740-KDE-MBN (E.D. La.), Plaintiffs
Sheila Matthews, Debra Chetta and Emily Barre move the Court to
certify a class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xufTmo0R

TAXOTERE(R) is a prescription medication used in the treatment of
breast cancer.

According to Gibbs Law Group, one of the plaintiff law firms, a
breast cancer survivor alleges the use of Taxotere (generic
docetaxel) during her chemotherapy treatment has resulted in
permanent, disfiguring hair loss.  According to the lawsuit,
Taxotere manufacturer Sanofi-Aventis knew as early as 2005 that
the drug may cause permanent alopecia in as many as 9.2% of
Taxotere patients, and intentionally withheld this information
from the medical community and the public.

On October 4, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred 28 civil action(s) to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407.
See ___ F.Supp.3d ___ (J.P.M.L. 2016). Since that time, 222
additional action(s) have been transferred to the Eastern District
of Louisiana. With the consent of that court, all the actions have
been assigned to the Honorable Kurt D. Engelhardt.

Matthews et al. are represented by:

          Val Patrick Exnicios, Esq.
          LISKA, EXNICIOS & NUNGESSER
          Attorneys-At-Law
          1515 Poydras Street
          14th Floor, Ste. 1400
          New Orleans, LA. 70112
          Telephone: (504) 410 9611
          Facsimile: (504) 410 9937

               - and -

          Michael Stag, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SMITH STAG, L.L.C.
          365 Canal St Ste 2850
          New Orleans LA, 701301163
          Telephone: (504) 593 9600
          Facsimile: (504) 593 9601

The Gibbs firm represents Plaintiff Valesta Collins.  The firm's
lawyers working on the case are:

          Karen Barth Menzies, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          400 Continental Blvd, 6th Floor
          El Segundo, California 90245
          Telephone: (510) 350-9240
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          Email:   kbm@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Amy M. Zeman, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                 amz@classlawgroup.com


MERCHANTS CREDIT: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Certification of 4 Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JANNETTE TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS CREDIT
ADJUSTERS, INC., PANSING, HOGAN ERNST & BACHMAN, L.L.P., the
Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00452-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying these
classes:

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Class No. 1:

   "(i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii) against whom
   Defendants filed a county court collection complaint in the
   form of Exhibit A or such a MCA collection lawsuit was pending
   or proceeding (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt
   (iv) which, as shown by the nature of the alleged debt,
   Defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors,
   was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes (v)
   during the period one year prior to the date of filing this
   action";

FDCPA Class No. 2:

   "(i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii) to whom
   Defendants sent, or caused to be sent Requests for Admissions
   in the form of Exhibit C (iii) in an attempt to collect an
   alleged debt (iv) which, as shown by the nature of the alleged
   debt, Defendants' records, or the records of the original
   creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household
   purposes (v) during the period one year prior to the date of
   filing this Action";

Nebraska Consumer Protection Act Class consisting of:

Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA) Class No. 1:

   "(i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii) against whom
   Defendants filed a county court collection complaint or such a
   MCA collection lawsuit was pending or proceeding (iii) in an
   attempt to collect an alleged debt (iv) which, as shown by the
   nature of the alleged debt, Defendants' records, or the
   records of the original creditors, was primarily for personal,
   family, or household purposes (v) during the period four years
   prior to the date of filing this action"; and

NCPA Class No. 2:

   "persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii) to whom Defendants
   sent, or caused to be sent Requests for Admissions
   (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt (iv) which, as
   shown by the nature of the alleged debt, Defendants'
   records, or the records of the original creditors, was
   primarily for personal, family, or household purposes (v)
   during the period four years prior to the date of filing this
   action.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
          8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391 8484
          Facsimile: (402) 391 1103
          E-mail: pacar@cox.net

               - and -

          Tregg R. Lunn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TREGG LUNN
          830 L Street, Suite 200
          Lincoln, NE 68508
          Telephone: 402 730-7012
          E-mail: tregg@tregglunnlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq.
          Shilee T. Mullin, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          13520 California Street, Suite 290
          Omaha, NE 68154

               - and -

          William F. Hargens, Esq.
          Lauren R. Goodman, Esq.
          MCGRATH NORTH MULLIN
          & KRATZ, PC, LLO
          First National Tower, Suite 3700
          1601 Dodge Street
          Omaha, NE 68102


MIDLAND CREDIT: Class Certified in "Leinenweber" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Harry D. Leinenweber entered an order in the
lawsuit titled RENETRICE R. PIERRE, Individually and on Behalf of
others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., a Kansas Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-02895 (N.D. Ill.), granted Plaintiff's Second Motion to
certify a class of:

   "all persons with Illinois addresses to whom Midland Credit
   Management, Inc. sent, from March 7, 2015 through March 7,
   2016, a letter containing the following statement: "The law
   limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age
   of your debt, we will not sue you for it, we will not report
   it to any credit reporting agency, and payment or non-payment
   will not affect your credit score"."

The Court said. "In a recurring theme, Midland's arguments miss
the mark. "True, the FDCPA allows for individual recoveries of up
to $1000. But this assumes that the plaintiff will be aware of her
rights, willing to subject herself to all the burdens of suing and
able to find an attorney willing to take her case." In this case,
allowing the action to proceed on a class wide basis aligns with
both the purpose of class actions (incentivizing aggregation of
claims where little incentive to sue individually would otherwise
exist) and the purpose of the FDCPA (protecting consumers from
abusive debt collection practices). Proceeding as a class action
will also further judicial efficiency. Rather than this Court
assuming the mantle of Punxsutawney and counsel the part of Bill
Murray's "Phil" resolving the legality of Midland's form
"discount" letter can occur once and for all -- instead of
(potentially) 68,754 times."

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


MOMS IN MOTION: "LaRue" Suit Seeks to Certify Facilitators Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARYANN LaRUE, on her own behalf, and for
all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MOMS IN MOTION,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-00162-GEC (W.D. Va.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certify a collective action to include:

      "all Facilitators, Service Facilitators and Senior Service
      Facilitators employed by the Defendant at any point in the
      last three years"; and

   2. ordering the Defendant to provide the names and addresses
      of all such persons to undersigned counsel and approving
      notice and consent forms to be sent by undersigned counsel
      to such persons.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Fjiu44g8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Strelka, Esq.
          L. Leigh R. Strelka, Esq.
          STRELKA LAW OFFICE, PC
          Warehouse Row
          119 Norfolk Avenue, S.W., Suite 330
          Roanoke, VA 24011
          Telephone: (540) 283 0802
          E-mail: thomas@strelkalaw.com
                  leigh@strelklaw.com


MULTI PACKAGING: Supplements Disclosures to Appease Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Multi Packaging Solutions International Limited said in its Form
8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21,
2017, that it reached an agreement with the Plaintiffs of the
three purported class action complaints challenging its
acquisition by WestRock Company to file supplemental disclosures
regarding the transaction.

On January 23, 2017, Multi Packaging Solutions International
Limited, a Bermuda exempted company ("MPS"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
WestRock Company, a Delaware corporation ("WestRock"), and WRK
Merger Sub Limited, a Bermuda exempted company ("Merger Sub"),
which Merger Agreement stated the terms and conditions on which
WestRock would acquire MPS (the "Proposed Transaction").

As previously disclosed, between February 28, 2017 and March 8,
2017, three purported class action complaints concerning the
Proposed Transaction were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against all or some of
the following: MPS, certain of MPS's current executive officers
and directors, WestRock, and Merger Sub (together, the "Merger
Litigation"). The plaintiffs in the Merger Litigation claimed that
the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed by MPS with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2017, and mailed to the MPS shareholders on or about March 7, 2017
(the "Proxy Statement"), omitted material information regarding
the Proposed Transaction.

The parties to the Merger Litigation subsequently engaged in
arm's-length negotiations to attempt to resolve the claims
asserted in the Merger Litigation, and reached an agreement
whereby MPS would file on this Current Report on Form 8-K (this
"Form 8-K") certain supplemental disclosures regarding the
Proposed Transaction.

The parties to the Merger Agreement believe that no further
disclosure is required to supplement the Proxy Statement. However,
to avoid the risk that the Merger Litigation may delay or
otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Proposed
Transaction, MPS hereby makes the supplemental disclosures to the
Proxy Statement.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Settlement in "Hyun" Suit Has Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled HYUN SOON CHIJNG, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHLAND GROUP INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-06246-SCM (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge entered an order:

   1. granting a motion for preliminary approval of proposed
      settlement;

   2. directing Parties to comply with the schedule and to comply
      with the terms of the Settlement Agreement; and

   3. certifying Settlement Class for purposes of settlement:

      "all consumers residing in the State of New Jersey, to whom
      Defendant Northland Group Inc. sent a collection letter
      which letter (a) was dated August 17, 2014 through and
      including August 17, 2015, (b) was seeking to collect a
      consumer debt allegedly owed to US Bank, NA., and (d) was
      sent in a windowed envelope such that the account number
      associated with the debt was visible from outside the
      envelope".

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), the Court appointed Andrew R.
Wolf and Bharati Sharma Patel of The Wolf Law Firm, LLC and
Yongmoon Kim of the Kim Law Firm LLC as Class Counsel.

The Settlement Agreement provides in part for Defendant to (1)
establish a settlement fund in the amount set forth in the
Settlement Agreement; (2) pay the Class Representative's
individual statutory damages and incentive payment, subject to
approval by the Court and (3) pay attorneys' fees and costs
(including the cost of settlement administration) pursuant to the
FDPCA in the amount of $91,30l.80.

The Plaintiff has selected DRRT as the Settlement Administrator.

DRRT may be reached at:

     Alexander Reus, Managing Partner
     DRRT
     340 West Flagler Street, 2nd Floor
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: (305) 760-8012
     E-mail: areus@drrt.com

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E5cLLLYB


OFF LEASE ONLY: Mohamed Seeks to Certify Spam Text Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Ray Mohamed, individually and, on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Off Lease Only,
INC., a Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-
23352-MGC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons in the United States (i) who received a text
      message (ii) on his or her cellular telephone (iii) from
      InstantCarOffer.com for Off Lease Only, Inc. (iv) sent
      using InstantCarOffer.com's systems (v) from a period of
      four (4) years prior to the filing of the initial
      Complaint, September 4, 2011, to the date of class
      certification".

   2. appointing Plaintiff as class representative;

   3. appointing Scott D. Owens, P.A., Hiraldo, P.A., Bret
      Lusskin, P.A. and Farmer, Jaffee, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos
      and Lehrman, P.L. as class counsel.

The case alleges Off Lease Only, Inc.'s willful disregard for the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and use of automated
technology to bombard individuals with text message
advertisements. From April 2014 to May 2015, Off Lease Only,
through its agent Instantcaroffer.com, sent 78,1761 automated spam
text messages to approximately 62,8722 cellular telephone numbers
in violation of the TCPA.3 All of these text messages were sent
using an automatic telephone dialing system, and none were sent
with the prior express consent of the recipients.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

                - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
          Telephone: 954.400.4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
                  mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

                - and -

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
          EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: seth@pathtojustice.com
                  steve@pathtojustice.com


OPTUM INC: "Mauthe" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. OPTUM, INC., OPTUMINSIGHT, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 5:17-cv-01643-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves for
entry of an order certifying a class of:

   "each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone
   facsimile messages ("faxes") about the Optum Provider Database
   product, but not stating on its first page that the fax
   recipient may request that the sender not send any future fax
   and that the sender's failure to comply with such a request
   within 30 days would be unlawful".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RHroJl6B

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


OPTUM360 LLC: "Conner" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled STEVEN A. CONNER DPM, P.C., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. OPTUM360, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01642-JLS (E.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiff moves for entry of an order certifying a class
of:

   "each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone
   facsimile messages ("faxes") about goods, products, or
   services available for purchase from optumcoding.com or
   optum360coding.com".

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


PEABODY ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Lynn" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation awaits ruling on a motion to dismiss a
putative class action lawsuit initiated by Lori J. Lynn in
Missouri, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On June 11, 2015, a former Peabody Investments Corp. (PIC)
employee filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of
three of the Company's or its subsidiaries' 401(k) retirement
plans and certain participants and beneficiaries of the plans. The
lawsuit, which was brought against the Peabody Energy Corporation
(PEC), Peabody Holding Company, LLC (PHC), PIC and a number of the
Company's and PIC's current and former executives and employees,
alleges breach of fiduciary duties and seeks monetary damages
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
relating to the offering of the Peabody Energy Stock Fund as an
investment option in the 401(k) retirement plans.

On September 8, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
which, among other things, named a new plaintiff and named all of
the current members and two former members of the relevant boards
of directors as defendants. The class period (December 2012 to
present) remains unchanged. On November 9, 2015, the defendants
filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 11, 2016 that
included new allegations against the Company related to the
Company's disclosure to investors of risks associated with climate
change and related legislation and regulations. The second amended
complaint also added the three committees responsible for
administering the three 401(k) retirement plans at issue and
dropped several individual defendants, including current directors
of PEC's board of directors. As a result of filing the Chapter 11
Cases, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the three Debtor
defendants (PEC, PIC and PHC) and elected to proceed against the
individual defendants and the three named committees with the
second amended complaint. On November 17, 2016, the parties
presented arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss. A ruling
has not yet been issued.

Peabody Energy Corporation is the world's largest private-sector
coal company by volume.  The Company owns interests in 23 coal
mining operations located in the United States and Australia.  In
addition to its mining operations, the Company markets and brokers
coal from other coal producers, both as principal and agent, and
trades coal and freight-related contracts through trading and
business offices in Australia, China, Germany, the United Kingdom
and the U.S.


PERCHERON FIELD: Suit Seeks to Certify Right of Way Agents Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ERIC BOYINGTON, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PERCHERON FIELD
SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-00090-KRG (W.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all Right of Way Agents who worked for Defendant Percheron
      Field Services, LLC, or its predecessors in interest (see
      Mem. Op., ECF No. 97, at 5), on pipeline projects in
      Pennsylvania between May 7, 2011 and December 31, 2014";
      and

   2. appointing Employment Rights Group, John R. Linkosky,
      Esquire, and Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP as
      class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mD9MrNVb

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
          THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP
          100 First Avenue, Suite 650
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 227 0763
          E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

               - and -

          John R. Linkosky, Esq.
          JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES
          715 Washington Avenue
          Carnegie, PA 15106
          Telephone: (412) 278 1280
          E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net

               - and -

          Bruce C. Fox, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Cadle, Esq.
          OBERMAYER REBMANN
          MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP
          500 Grant Street, Ste. 5240
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone.: (412) 566 1500
          E-mail: bruce.fox@obermayer.com
                  jeffrey.cadle@obermayer.com


PERSOLVE LLC: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GORDON SIEVERT, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. PERSOLVE, LLC
d/b/a ACCOUNT RESOLUTION ASSOCIATES and CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00586-DEJ (E.D., Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks that the Court enter an order certifying a
class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting
documents in support of this motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BM1hCduC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Settlement in "Klippel" Suit Has Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RUSSELL KLIPPEL, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC and CATHERINE M. HEDGEMAN, ESQ., the
Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-01061-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order:

   1. granting a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed
      settlement and directing Plaintiff and Defendant to comply
      with the schedule as set forth in the Order;

   2. directing Defendant to comply with its obligation to serve
      written notice of the proposed class settlement to the
      appropriate governmental representatives pursuant to the
      Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119
      Stat. 4 and the terms of the Settlement Agreement, no later
      than 10 days after the date of this Order; and

   3. preliminarily certifying Settlement Class for purposes of
      final settlement:

      "all those individuals who opt-in timely, who meet the
      following definition: Natural persons who were sued by PRA
      in a state court consumer collection action brought within
      the Northern District of New York in a city court in this
      District in an action in which a summons misrepresented the
      state court's jurisdiction over the defendant by stating in
      the summons , in relevant part: "BASIS FOR VENUE: Defendant
      resides in jurisdiction of CITY OF     " [or any
      substantially similar statement], in which the address of
      the state court defendant's residence is listed in the
      summons and/or complaint, and is outside the jurisdiction
      of the relevant city court, and, in which the summons was
      filed within one year of the initiation of the instant
      class action".

The Settlement Class will only include individuals who received a
summons and/or complaint signed by Catherine Hedgeman, Esq. The
Settlement Class will not include anyone who filed for bankruptcy
after the alleged violation took place or anyone who is deceased.
For purposes of determining whether an address listed in a summons
is "outside the jurisdiction of the relevant city court," the
parties agree that this shall mean that the residence of a
consumer to whom a summons was addressed was not in the city for
whose city court the collection action was filed in or in a town
that is (i) within the same county and (ii) contiguous to the city
by land.

A Fairness Hearing shall be held before this Court at 10:00 a.m.,
on September 6, 2017 (or sometime that week, but not sooner than
110 days after entry of this Order), in Courtroom No. 5 at the
James T. Foley U.S. Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Albany, NY 12207, on
the proposed Settlement including: (a) whether to grant final
approval to the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and
issue an Order dismissing the Complaint with prejudice; (b)
whether Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and costs is
reasonable and (c) whether to approve the service payment to
Plaintiff. This hearing may be adjourned to a later date without
further or prior notice by oral announcement by the Court or by
written order.

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


PREMIER CONSTRUCTION: Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled SEAN PATTERSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PREMIER CONSTRUCTION
CO. INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00662-SLT-ST
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the court before the Hon.
Sandra L. Townes, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, for an Order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of a proposed settlement
      agreement;

   2. preliminarily certifying, for settlement purposes only and
      pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement between
      the parties, the proposed collective class pursuant to
      Section 216(b) of the FLSA and the proposed NYLL Settlement
      Class pursuant to FRCP 23, as described in the Settlement
      Agreement and Amended Complaint, all for the purposes of
      providing notice to the members of the proposed Settlement
      Classes;

   3. approving the form and content of, and directing the
      distribution of, the proposed Notice of Class Action and
      Claim and Release Form, annexed to the Proposed Settlement
      Agreement, which upon this Court's approval will be
      translated into Spanish, to ensure that the putative class
      members fully understand their options under the Settlement
      Agreement;

   4. appointing Plaintiff's Counsel, Joseph & Norinsberg, LLC,
      as Class Counsel representing the Plaintiff and classes
      named in the Amended Complaint and in the Settlement
      Agreement for purposes of the Settlement;

   5. appointing Sean Patterson, the Plaintiff named in the
      Amended Complaint, as Settlement Class Representative;

   6. appointing Settlement Services Inc. (a subsidiary of Garden
      City Group, Inc.) as Settlement Administrator; and

   7. granting any relief that the Court finds just and proper.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BfbTeG6o

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
          Chaya Gourarie, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
          225 Broadway Suite 2700
          New York, N.Y. 10007
          Telephone: (212) 791 5396/7
          Facsimile: (212) 406 6890

The Defendants are represented by:

          RABINOWITZ & GALINA ESQS
          94 Willis Avenue
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 739 8222
          Facsimile: (516) 739 8225


RBS CITIZENS: "Reinig" Suit Seeks Certification of 10 Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ALEX REINIG, et al. the Plaintiffs, v. RBS
CITIZENS, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01541-AJ (W.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order:

   A. certifying the following classes:

      1. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for
         Citizens throughout the United States for violations of
         Pennsylvania law;

      2. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for
         Citizens in Connecticut for violations of Connecticut
         law;

      3. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for
         Ohio in Connecticut for violations of Ohio law;

      4. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for
         Citizens in Illinois for violations of Illinois law;

      5. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for
         Citizens in New Hampshire for violations of New
         Hampshire law;

      6. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for
         Citizens in Rhode Island for violations of Rhode Island
         law;

      7. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for
         Citizens in Massachusetts for violations of
         Massachusetts law;

      8. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for in
         Michigan for violations of Michigan law;

      9. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for
         Citizens in New York for violations of New York law; and

     10. a class of all current and former MLOs who worked for
         Citizens in North Carolina for violations of North
         Carolina law.

   B. appointing the Named Plaintiffs as class representatives of
      their respective classes; and

   C. appointing Joshua S. Boyette, Justin L. Swidler, and Daniel
      A. Horowitz as class counsel for all classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h8HPvFWz

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Hwy N, Ste 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled TANYA LAFRENIER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00534-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay the class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cEaaLF76

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


RFI CONSTRUCTION: Conditional Certification of FLSA Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JOAQUIN LUNA-REYES, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RFI
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, RUPERT BURROWS, SKANSKA USA BUILDING, H.J.
RUSSELL & COMPANY, and METCON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV-
235-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff moves the Court:

   1. for conditional certification of the action as a
      representative collective action under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA);

   2. for approval of the proposed FLSA/NCWHA notice of the
      action and the consent form in both English and Spanish;

   3. to compel production of updated list of names, last known
      mailing addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers,
      email addresses, and dates of employment for all putative
      plaintiffs/class members;

   4. for permission to email and/or text message the proposed
      Notice, along with utilizing regular U.S. Mail;

   5. for permission to post the Notice, along with the consent
      forms, at all Defendants' current jobsites;

   6. to certify this action as a class action under Rule 23(a)
      and (b)(3) for the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA)
      claims; and

   7. to appoint the named Plaintiff Luna-Reyes as class
      representative, and The Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez,
      PLLC, and Lee & Braziel, LLP as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c5Ikk9cN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Michael B. Cohen, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741 8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869 1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  mcohen@gildahernandezlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP
          1801 N. Lamar St. Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749 1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749 1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


ROYAL BANCSHARES: Expects Resolution of Appeal in Fourth Quarter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc., said in its Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the appeal
from the approval of settlement is expected to be resolved in the
third or fourth quarter of 2017.

Prior to December 31, 2013, Royal Bank held a 60% equity interest
in each of Crusader Servicing Corporation ("CSC") and Royal Tax
Lien Services, LLC ("RTL").  CSC and RTL acquired, through public
auction, delinquent tax liens in various jurisdictions thereby
assuming a superior lien position to most other lien holders,
including mortgage lien holders.  In 2012, the former President of
CSC and RTL, CSC, RTL and the Company were named defendants, among
others, in a Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint (the
"Complaint") filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey ("Court") on behalf of a proposed class of taxpayers
who became delinquent in paying their municipal tax obligations.
The Complaint alleged a conspiracy to rig bids in municipal tax
lien auctions.

During 2013, the Company, Royal Bank, CSC, and RTL reached a
settlement agreement with plaintiffs to settle the litigation for
$1.65 million and other terms and conditions, including an
opportunity for members of the proposed settlement class whose tax
liens are currently held by CSC or RTL to redeem those liens for a
one-time cash payment equaling 85% of the redemption amount by
making such payment within 35 days of the date of written notice.
The proposed settlement class does not include, and therefore the
offer to redeem does not apply to, tax liens acquired at 0%
interest or at a premium. The settlement amount has already been
paid into an escrow account. In 2016, the Court approved the
settlement after notice and a hearing.  The plaintiffs are
appealing the Court's decision. It is expected to be resolved in
the third or fourth quarter of 2017.

Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc., is a Pennsylvania business
corporation and a bank holding company registered under the
Federal Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.  Headquartered in Bala
Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, the principal activities of the Company are
supervising Royal Bank America, which engages in general banking
business principally in Montgomery, Delaware, Chester, Bucks,
Philadelphia and Berks counties in Pennsylvania, central and
southern New Jersey, and Delaware.


RUSHMORE LOAN: "Williams" Suit Seeks Certification of 6 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MATTHEW D. WILLIAMS, on behalf of plaintiff
and a class, the Plaintiff, v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
LLC; MCCALLA RAYMER LEIBERT PIERCE, LLC, successor by merger to
Hunt Leibert Jacobson, P.C.; and GMAT LEGAL TITLE TRUST 2013-1,
also known as GMAT 2013-1 TRUST, by U.S. BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00538-SRU (D.
Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying three
classes for Count I and three classes for Count II, as follows:

Count I:

   Class A consists of (a) all individuals (b) from whom Rushmore
   sought (by any means)late charges (c) incurred after
   acceleration of a loan (d) at any time during a period
   beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and
   ending 21 days after the filing of this action.

   Class B consists of (a) all individuals (b) from whom McCalla
   sought (by any means) late charges (c) incurred after
   acceleration of a loan (d) at any time during a period
   beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and
   ending 21 days after the filing of this action.

   Class C consists of (a) all individuals (b) where late charges
   were sought on behalf of GMAT 2013 (by any means) (c) incurred
   after acceleration of a loan (d) at any time during a
   period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action
   and ending 21 days after the filing of this action.

Count II:

   Class A consists of (a) all individuals (b) against whom
   Rushmore caused to be filed a foreclosure complaint (c) which
   included a page describing validation or dispute rights
   similar to those in 15 U.S.C. section 1692g (d) at any time
   during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this
   action and ending 21 days after the filing of this action.

   Class B consists of (a) all individuals (b) against whom
   McCalla filed a foreclosure complaint (c) which included a
   page describing validation or dispute rights similar to those
   in 15 U.S.C. section 1692g (d) at any time during a period
   beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and
   ending 21 days after the filing of this action.

   Class C consists of (a) all individuals (b) against whom GMAT
   2013 filed a foreclosure complaint (c) which included a page
   describing validation or dispute rights similar to those in 15
   U.S.C. section 1692g (d) at any time during a period beginning
   one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 21 days
   after the filing of this action.

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

The Defendant Rushmore acquired servicing of plaintiff's loan,
after it was in default. The Defendant GMAT 2013 claims to have
acquired ownership of the loan, after it was in default. On July
21, 2016, Rushmore caused a foreclosure lawsuit to be filed
against plaintiff Matthew D. Williams. The lawsuit was filed in
the name of GMAT 2013, as alleged owner of the loan. Hunt Leibert
Jacobson, P.C., now McCalla, was counsel for GMAT 2013.  On August
2, 2016, Rushmore sent the letter seeking payment of post-
acceleration late charges.

Plaintiff alleges two FDCPA violations. Count I alleges that
defendants seek to collect post-acceleration late charges, which
were not authorized. A mortgagee or servicer is not entitled to
late fees after acceleration.

Count II complains that the foreclosure complaint includes a
notice similar to a notice of rights under 15 U.S.C. section
1692g. The inclusion of such a notice with a complaint is
confusing to the least sophisticated consumer, in that it suggests
a means of responding to the complaint other than as specified in
the summons.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gN8EdVof

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joanne Faulkner, Esq.
          123 Avon Street
          New Haven, CT 06511
          Telephone: (203) 772-0395
          E-mail: faulknerlawoffice@snet.net

               - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Heather A. Kolbus, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail courtecl@edcombs.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lee Perres, Esq.
          McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
          1 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60602


SALANDER ENTERPRISES: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order in the lawsuit
styled Nyoaky Williams, the Plaintiff, v. Salander Enterprises,
LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02591 (N.D. Ill.),
continuing the proceedings with respect to Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on April 10, 2017,
the motion hearings set for April 17, 2017 are stricken. This
notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XlbYQPI9


SEAFOOD JUNCTION: "MORRIS" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JASON MORRIS and SARITA NORMAN, individual
and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. SEAFOOD JUNCTION, INC., SEAFOOD JUNCTION No. 3,
INC., MOHAMAD JALAB, an individual, SEAFOOD JUNCTION No. 4, INC.,
IMAN ABDELGHANI, an individual, LAYLA 08, INC., d/b/a SEAFOOD
JUNCTION, EYAD ALHJOUJ, an individual, and FOUR BROTHERS 1 INC.,
d/b/a SEAFOOD JUNCTION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07002
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class and
appoint counsel for Plaintiffs as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs brought their claims against Defedants under Faior
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.  The
lawsuit asserts Defedants knowingly required or permitted
Plaintiffs to perform work up to forty hours per week and work in
excess of 40 hours per week without receiving the full amount of
minimum or regular wages and overtime wages earned and owed to
them.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=551LZzfA

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Pasha Vaziri, Esq.
          VAZIRI LAW LLC
          111 W. Washington St., Ste. 1500
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 690 2610
          E-mail: pvaziri@vazirilawllc.com


SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Class Suits in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits alleging its operations fail to comply with
California laws, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended January 28, 2017.

The Company said: "We also are a defendant in several putative or
certified class action lawsuits in California relating to alleged
failure to comply with California laws pertaining to certain
operational, marketing, and pricing practices. The California laws
alleged to have been violated in each of these lawsuits provide
the potential for significant statutory penalties."

At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the
outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a potential range
of loss with respect to the lawsuits.

Sears Holdings Corporation is the parent company of Kmart Holding
Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co.  The Company was formed as
a Delaware corporation in 2004 in connection with the merger of
Kmart and Sears.  The Company is an integrated retailer with
significant physical and intangible assets, as well as virtual
capabilities enabled through technology.  The Company operates a
national network of stores with 1,430 full-line and specialty
retail stores in the United States operating through Kmart and
Sears.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits alleging violations of wage and hour laws,
according to the Company's March 21, 2017, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended January 28, 2017.

The Company said: "We are a defendant in several lawsuits
containing class or collective action allegations in which the
plaintiffs are current and former hourly and salaried associates
who allege violations of various wage and hour laws, rules and
regulations pertaining to alleged misclassification of certain of
our employees, the failure to pay overtime, and/or the failure to
pay for missed meal and rest periods, and other payroll
violations. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief, or both. Further, certain of these
proceedings are in jurisdictions with reputations for aggressive
application of laws and procedures against corporate defendants."

At this time, the Company says it is not able to either predict
the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a potential
range of loss with respect to the lawsuits.

Sears Holdings Corporation is the parent company of Kmart Holding
Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co.  The Company was formed as
a Delaware corporation in 2004 in connection with the merger of
Kmart and Sears.  The Company is an integrated retailer with
significant physical and intangible assets, as well as virtual
capabilities enabled through technology.  The Company operates a
national network of stores with 1,430 full-line and specialty
retail stores in the United States operating through Kmart and
Sears.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Matters Over Asbestos Exposure Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings and investigations relating to environmental and
asbestos exposure remain pending, Sears Holdings Corporation said
in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 21, 2017, for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2017.

The Company said: "We are subject to various other legal and
governmental proceedings and investigations, including some
involving the practices and procedures in our more highly
regulated businesses. Some matters contain class action
allegations, environmental and asbestos exposure allegations and
other consumer-based, regulatory or qui tam claims, each of which
may seek compensatory, punitive or treble damage claims
(potentially in large amounts), as well as other types of relief.
Additionally, some of these claims or actions, such as the qui tam
claims, have the potential for significant statutory penalties."

At this time, the Company says it is not able to either predict
the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a potential
range of loss with respect to these lawsuits.

Sears Holdings Corporation is the parent company of Kmart Holding
Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co.  The Company was formed as
a Delaware corporation in 2004 in connection with the merger of
Kmart and Sears.  The Company is an integrated retailer with
significant physical and intangible assets, as well as virtual
capabilities enabled through technology.  The Company operates a
national network of stores with 1,430 full-line and specialty
retail stores in the United States operating through Kmart and
Sears.


SOUTHERN HEALTH: "Medley" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ELLA MEDLEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN HEALTH
PARTNERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00003 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. requesting for authorization to proceed as a collective
      action for overtime compensation, under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act, on behalf of numerous employees of Defendant
      who were denied proper overtime compensation;

   2. directing Defendant to immediately provide a list of names,
      last known addresses, and last known telephone numbers for
      all employees of Defendant who worked within the past three
      (3) years and who were paid under Defendant's version of
      the fluctuating workweek, or non-exempt employees of
      Defendant who worked within the past three (3) years and
      who were worked off the clock; and

   3. requesting that notice be mailed all potential plaintiffs
      so that they can assert their claims on a timely basis as
      part of this litigation.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Russell, Esq.
          Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
          GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: 615-354-1144
          E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
                  eemmons@gilbertfirm.com

               - and -

          Ryan P. Durham, Esq.
          Ben Boston, Esq.
          Ryan P. Durham, Esq.
          Cameron Hoffmeyer, Esq.
          BOSTON, HOLT, SOCKWELL & DURHAM, PLLC
          Post Office Box 357
          235 Waterloo Street
          Lawrenceburg, TN 38464
          Telephone: (931) 762 7167

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth S. Washko, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          SunTrust Plaza
          401 Commerce Street, Suite 1200
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 254 1900


SPARK NETWORKS: Wins Final OK of Accord Resolving Israeli Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Court has entered
final approval of the settlement agreement to resolve these cases:
Israeli Consumer Actions Ben-Jacob vs. Spark Networks (Israel)
Ltd., Gever vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. and Korland vs. Spark
Networks (Israel) Ltd.

Three class action law suits have been filed in Israel alleging
inter alia violations of the Israel Consumer Protection Law of
1981.  Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. ("Spark Israel") was served
with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as a Class
Action in the Ben-Jacob action on January 14, 2014.  The plaintiff
alleges that Spark Israel refused to cancel her subscription and
provide a refund for unused periods and claims that such a refusal
is in violation of the Consumer Protection Law.  Spark Israel was
served with a Statement of Claim and a motion to Certify it as a
Class Action in the Gever action on January 21, 2014.  The
plaintiff alleges that Spark Israel renewed his one month
subscription without receiving his positive agreement in advance
and claims that such renewal is prohibited under the Consumer
Protection Law and its regulations. Spark Israel was served with a
Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as a Class Action in
the Korland action on February 12, 2014.  The plaintiff alleges
that Spark Israel refused to give her a full refund and charged
her the price of a one month subscription to the JDate website in
violation of the Consumer Protection Law.  In each of these three
cases, the plaintiff is seeking personal damages and damages on
behalf of a defined group. On May 8, 2014, the Court granted Spark
Israel's motion to consolidate all three cases. All three cases
are now consolidated and will be litigated jointly. Spark Israel's
combined response to these motions to certify the class actions
was filed November 1, 2014, and the plaintiffs responded to the
combined response. The parties had a hearing before the judge on
December 24, 2014.  Following the hearing the judge ordered that
the pleadings filed by the parties be transferred to the Israel
Consumer Council ("ICC") so that the ICC can provide its position
as to the parties' allegations within 90 days. The ICC issued its
opinion on April 1, 2015.  Following the filing of the ICC
opinion, the parties filed briefs addressing the ICC opinion.

On January 7, 2016, the parties advised the Court that they have
agreed on the terms of a settlement agreement, and jointly moved
to approve the agreement and give it the effect of a judgment.
According to the terms of the settlement agreement, clients who
bought a subscription to JDate.co.il on October 12, 2008 or later
will be entitled to receive certain benefits. The settlement
agreement, which provides for compensation and legal fees, will
only come into effect if the court approves it. On January 14,
2016 the Court ordered the parties to publish the terms of the
proposed settlement agreement. The Court allowed for the Attorney
General or any person who wishes to object to the settlement or
exclude himself from the class to file their position with the
Court through March 10, 2016. On March 10, 2016, the ICC filed an
objection to the settlement agreement, arguing inter alia that the
benefits offered to the clients are insufficient, and that the
Company's new business model does not comply with certain legal
requirements. The Company and the plaintiffs filed their responses
on March 24, 2016. On April 14, 2016, the Attorney General
notified the Court that it has no objection to the settlement
agreement.

On February 8, 2017, a hearing was held during which the judge
asked questions about the settlement agreement. The Company and
the plaintiffs filed a revised settlement agreement on February
18, 2017, for the judge's final approval. On February 28, 2017,
the judge approved the settlement agreement, which provided for
compensation and legal fees under terms from the original
settlement agreement. The Company has recorded an accrual of
$52,000 for the probable cost related to resolving this matter as
of December 31, 2016.

Spark Networks, Inc., creates communities that help individuals
form life-long relationships with others that share their
interests and values. The Company's core properties, JDate and
ChristianMingle, are communities geared towards singles of the
Jewish and Christian faiths.


STAR BULK: Awaits Order in Appeal From Shareholder Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Star Bulk Carriers Corp. awaits judgment in an appeal from the
dismissal of a shareholder lawsuit filed in New York, according to
the Company's March 22, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On October 23, 2014, a purported shareholder (the "Plaintiff") of
the Company filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit
in New York state court against the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, members of its Board of Directors and several of its
shareholders and related entities. The Company has been named as a
nominal defendant in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the
acquisition of Oceanbulk and purchase of several Excel Vessels
were the result of self-dealing by various defendants and that the
Company entered into the respective transactions on unfair terms.
The lawsuit further alleges that, as a result of these
transactions, several defendants' interests in the Company have
increased and that the Plaintiff's interest in the Company has
been diluted. The lawsuit also alleges that the Company's
management has engaged in other conduct that has resulted in
corporate waste. The lawsuit seeks cancellation of all shares
issued to the defendants in connection with the acquisition of
Oceanbulk, unspecified monetary damages, the replacement of some
or all members of the Company's Board of Directors and its Chief
Executive Officer, and other relief.

The Company believes the claims are completely without merit,
denies them and intends to vigorously defend against them in
court. On November 24, 2014, the Company and the other defendants
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. On March 4, 2015, the Company and
the other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

On February 18, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in full and dismissed the matter. On February 24, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The appeal was heard before
the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on December 6, 2016
and judgment is pending.

Star Bulk Carriers Corp. is an international shipping company with
extensive operational experience that owns and operates a fleet of
dry bulk carrier vessels.  On a fully delivered basis, the Company
will have a fleet of 73 vessels consisting primarily of
Newcastlemax, Capesize as well as Kamsarmax, Ultramax and Supramax
vessels with a carrying capacity between 52,055 dwt and 209,537
dwt.  The Company's vessels transport a broad range of major and
minor bulk commodities, including ores, coal, grains and
fertilizers, along worldwide shipping routes.


STAR HOME: "Paradysz" Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN PARADYSZ, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STAR HOME HEALTH,
INC. and CLEMENTINA IKWUEZUNMA, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00655 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks that the Court to enter
order:

   1. granting motion to certify a collective action and to issue
      opt-in notices and consent forms to:

      "all persons who worked as Registered and Licensed Vocation
      Nurses for either Defendant from three years prior to the
      date the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to the present.

   2. directing Defendants produce to Plaintiff's counsel in a
      usable electronic format no later than seven days from
      entry of the Court's Order, the names, last known personal
      and residential addresses, last known residential and cell
      phone numbers, personal and work e-mail addresses, last
      four digits of their Social Security Number, and dates of
      work of all persons who performed work for Defendants as
      Registered and Licensed Vocational Nurses in the three
      years prior to the date the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion
      for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action to the
      present;

   3. prohibiting Defendants from communicating directly or
      indirectly with any current or former employees who are
      putative collective action members about any matters which
      touch or concern the settlement of any outstanding wage
      claims or other matters related to this suit during the
      opt-in period, so as to preserve the putative collective
      action members' right to make free and voluntary choices
      about whether to join this case; and

   4. allowing potential Plaintiffs be given 45 days to opt-into
      this lawsuit, and allowing Plaintiff's counsel be allowed
      to send notice and consent forms to opt-in Plaintiffs at
      least two times through the U.S. mail and two times via e-
      mail during the 45-day period.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Sullivan, Esq.
          OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP
          712 Main Street, Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 401 3555
          Facsimile: (713) 401 3547

               - and -

          Clayton D. Craighead, Esq.
          THE CRAIGHEAD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          440 Louisiana, Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (832) 798 1184
          Facsimile: (832) 553 7261
          E-mail: clayton.craighead@thetxlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nwadi Nwogu, Esq.
          Meka Odunze, Esq.
          Odunze Nwogu Law Group, P.C.
          6000 Savoy Drive, Suite 302
          Houston, TX 77036


STATE COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JAMES WILLIAMS, KIM MORGAN, and MARK
MOREHOUSE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00532-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs
asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class, appointing
the Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Ademi &
O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further asks the Court to stay the class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jOhMM0e9

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


U.S. SECURITY: "Barnett" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JENA BARNETT on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v.
U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00473-PLR-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to:

   1. authorize the case to proceed as a collective action for
      overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act
      (FLSA), on behalf of:

      "non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in the
      Volkswagen Chattanooga Assembly Plant1 who were required to
      perform compensable work without being compensated for such
      work";

   2. issue an Order directing Defendant to immediately provide a
      list of names, last known addresses, and last known
      telephone numbers for all putative class members who worked
      for Defendant within the last three years;

   3. issue an Order that notice be prominently posted at the
      facility where putative class members work, attached to
      current employees' next scheduled paycheck, and be mailed
      to the employees so that they can assert their claims on a
      timely basis as part of this litigation; and

   4. order that the opt in plaintiffs' Consent Forms be deemed
      "filed" on the date they are postmarked.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N1oIqXnJ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael L. Russell, Esq.
          Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
          GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER
          SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: (615) 354 1144
          E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
                  eemmons@gilbertfirm.com

               - and --

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Russell W. Gray, Esq.
          J. Lane Crowder, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN
          CALDWELL & BEROWITZ PC
          1900 Republic Centre
          633 Chestnut Street
          Chattanooga, TN 37450
          Telephone: (423) 756 2010


UAW: Retired Employees Class Certified in Barnes Group Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BARNES GROUP, INC., (including its
Associated Spring Division), the Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION
UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00559-MPS (D.
Conn.), the Hon. Michael P. Shea entered an order:

   1. granting joint motion for class certification for purposes
      of the claim seeking a declaratory judgment that the UAW
      and its affiliated Locals have authority to agree to the
      changes in retiree medical benefits of the Barnes
      Retirees, including to agree to apply the changes in
      retiree medical coverage set forth in the 2016-2017 MOA:

      a. Barnes employees who retired between July 31, 1996 and
         April 6, 2016, the date the 2016-2017 MOA was ratified,
         and  those who retire after that date but before the
         date set by the Court for closing of the Class, from
         either of the two Bristol Associated Spring plants and
         who were represented by UAW Local 712 at the date of
         their retirement";

      b. Barnes employees who retired or will retire between
         August 1, 1993 and April 6, 2016, the date the 2016-2017
         MOA was ratified, from the Saline Associated Spring
         plant, or its predecessor plant in Ann Arbor, Michigan,
         who were represented by Local 38 at the date of their
         retirement;

      c. Barnes employees who retired or will retire between June
         15, 1992 and April 6, 2016, the date the 2016-2017 MOA
         was ratified, and those who retire after that date but
         before the date set by the Court for closing of the
         Class, from the Corry Associated Spring plant and who
         were represented by Local 629 at the date of their
         retirement;

      d. Barnes employees who retired or will retire between July
         23, 1992 and the April 6, 2016, the date the 2016-2017
         MOA was ratified, from the Dayton Associated Spring
         plant and who were represented by Local 1177 on the date
         of their retirement; and

      e. the spouses and dependents of any retiree described
         above including the surviving spouse of any such retiree
         who is deceased.

   2. appointing William M. Bloss of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder,
      P.C., to serve as defendant class counsel; and

   3. directing parties to submit for the Court's approval a
      proposed notice to the class members on or before May 3,
      2017. The parties' proposal should address the appropriate
      date for closing of the class.

This action pertains to changes to the medical benefits of
retirees who retired after the 1996 class action settlement, and
are therefore not covered by the settlement. Although it
negotiated the changes with Barnes after determining that they
were in the best interests of its members, the UAW determined that
it could not apply the changes to these retirees in the absence of
a court order, because its authority to do so is ambiguous. Barnes
seeks a declaratory judgment that the UAW and its affiliated
Locals have authority to agree to the changes in retiree medical
benefits of the retirees who retired after the 1996 class action
settlement, or alternatively, that Barnes may implement these
changes on its own, without violating federal law.

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


UNITED RECOVERY: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAN KOWALEWSKI, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED
RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00531-NJ
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks that the Court enter an order
certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as its
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and to grant the parties relief from the
local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that
Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this
motion.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


US BANK: Continues to Defend Suits, Including BlackRock Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bank, National Association, continues to defend itself
against various lawsuits, including the BlackRock cases, according
to Hyundai ABS Funding, LLC's March 22, 2017, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

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

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

U.S. Bank cannot assure you as to the outcome of any of the
litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the
trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability
and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS
trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of
losses to investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it
intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously.


VERIZON: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Aliksanyan" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned GARO ALIKSANYAN, the Plaintiff, v.
VERIZON, N.Y. STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00394-
MKB-SMG (E.D.N.Y.), the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to certify
a class based on his legal inability to represent the class.

The Court said, "On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to
certify a class, consisting of "tens of thousands, perhaps
hundreds of thousands of similarly situated qualified Lifeline New
York State applicants who are unable 'to seek redress from the
courts'." Plaintiff, however, is proceeding pro se and therefore
may not prosecute a class action as lead counsel and serve as the
class representative. See Rodriquez v. Eastman Kodak Co., 88 F.
App'x 470, 471 (2d Cir. 2004) "Although plaintiffs have a right to
proceed pro se in civil actions, a pro se plaintiff may not seek
to represent the interests of third-parties. Moreover, it is well
established that a pro se class representative cannot adequately
represent the interests of other class members." (citing
Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1998; Iannaccone,
142 F.3d at 558 (holding that "because pro se means to appear for
one's self, a person may not appear on another person's behalf in
the other's cause . . . [but] must be litigating an interest
personal to him"); Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d 408, 413 (2d Cir.
1976) ("Ability to protect the interests of the class depends in
part on the quality of counsel, and we consider the competence of
a layman representing himself to be clearly too limited to allow
him to risk the rights of others." (citation omitted)); Bank v.
Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., No. 12-CV-5572, 2014 WL 4258932, at
*2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2014) ("Indeed it is well settled in this
Circuit that 'a pro se plaintiff may not bring an action in which
he will serve as both class representative and class counsel.'"
(quoting Jaffe v. Captial One Bank, No. 09-CV-4106, 2010 WL
691639, at 10 (S.D.N.Y Mar. 1, 2010)))."

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


VOLVO CARS: Class Certification Bid in "Neale" Suit Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jose L. Linares entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
JOANNE NEALE, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH
AMERICA, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:10-cv-04407-JLL-
JAD (D.N.J.), administratively terminating, without prejudice, the
motion to continue Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Court further order:

   1. accommodating the deposition of the plaintiffs' expert
      Patrick M. Passarella;

   2. administratively terminating, without prejudice, the
      plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification;

   3. directing the plaintiffs may once again renew their motion
      for class certification, a point after the completion of
      the deposition of the plaintiffs' expert Patrick M.
      Passarella, by:

      a. filing a new notice of motion;

      b. annexing a statement thereto that they intend to rely
         upon their previously-filed briefs and exhibits; and

      c. filing any supplemental briefs, if necessary;

   4. directing that the new return date will be set by the Clerk
      of the Court upon the filing of the new notice of motion;
      and

   5. granting parties leave to seek extensions of time to file
      opposition and reply briefs after the new notice of motion
      has been filed.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=C0WdY4oS


WALGREEN CO: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WASHTENAW COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WALGREEN CO., GREGORY D. WASSON,
and WADE MIQUELON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-3187-SJC-MMR
(N.D. Ill.), Lead Plaintiff Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S
moves the Court for an order:

   1. certifying the action against Defendants as a class
      action on behalf of a class of:

      "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired Walgreens' common stock between March 25, 2014 and
      August 5, 2014, inclusive (Class Period), and were damaged
      thereby (the Class);

   2. appointing Industriens as the Class representative; and

   3. approving Industriens' selection of Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
      Check, LLP (Kessler Topaz) as counsel for the Class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eli R. Greenstein, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
          Rupa Cook Nath, Esq.
          Paul A. Breucop, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400 3000
          Facsimile: (415) 400 3001
          E-mail: egreenstein@ktmc.com
                  jjoost@ktmc.com
                  rcook@ktmc.com
                  pbreucop@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Johnston de F. Whitman, Esq.
          Michelle M. Newcomer, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056
          E-mail: jwhitman@ktmc.com
                  mnewcomer@ktmc.com

               - and -

          James E. Barz, Esq.
          Frank A. Richter, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 674 4674
          Facsimile: (312) 674 4676
          E-mail: jbarz@rgrdlaw.com
                  frichter@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eli R. Greenstein, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER
          & CHECK LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104


WELLS FARGO: "Merino" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JUAN CARLOS MERINO and AGUSTIN MOREL,
JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, and WELLS FARGO BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-07840-ES-
MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, for entry of an Order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "persons who at any point in the last 3 years: (1) who work
      or have worked for Wells Fargo as hourly paid employees;
      (2) have been required to meet quarterly quotas for new
      accounts; (3) have worked more than forty (40) hours per
      week; and (4) have not been paid overtime wages";

   2. directing Wells Fargo to produce a computer-readable list
      identifying by name, last known mail address, last known
      email address, and telephone number all persons described
      above within 10 days of entry of the Order;

   3. authorizing Plaintiffs to issue the Notice to the Anderson
      Declaration to putative class members via U.S. Mail and/or
      email and the Consent to Join form; and

   4. authorizing Wells Fargo to post the Notice in a conspicuous
      common area in its retail banking branches.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ee6XTqVh

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH, LLC
          363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C
          Montclair, NJ 07042
          Telephone: (973) 259 6990
          Facsimile: (866) 848 1368
          E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com

               - and -

          Russel S. Warren, Jr., Esq.
          473 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632-1234
          Telephone: (201) 503 0773
          Facsimile: (201) 503 0776
          E-mail: mail@RWarrenlaw.com

               - and -

          Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
          217 Centre Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 847 8315
          Facsimile: (646) 520 3236
          E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com


WELLS FARGO: Bids to Dismiss Suits by Investors Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss investors' lawsuits involving Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, remain pending, according to COMM 2013-
CCRE12 Mortgage Trust's March 21, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The 175 West Jackson Mortgage Loan and the Miracle Mile Shops
Mortgage Loan, which constituted approximately 12.5% and 12.1%,
respectively, of the asset pool of the issuing entity as of its
cut-off date, are each an asset of the issuing entity and are each
part of a loan combination that includes (a) with respect to the
175 West Jackson Mortgage Loan which is an asset of the issuing
entity and one other pari passu loan, which is not an asset of the
issuing entity and (b) with respect to the Miracle Mile Shops
Mortgage Loan which is an asset of the issuing entity and five
other pari passu loans, which are not assets of the issuing
entity. These loan combinations, including the 175 West Jackson
Mortgage Loan and the Miracle Mile Shops Mortgage Loan, are being
serviced and administered pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association is the master
servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.  The
responsibilities of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as
primary servicer of each of these loan combinations with respect
to the issuing entity, are subsumed within its responsibilities as
master servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed a civil
complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo Bank"), in
its capacity as trustee under 276 residential mortgage backed
securities ("RMBS") trusts, which was later amended on July 18,
2014, to increase the number of trusts to 284 RMBS trusts. On
November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily
dismiss the state court action without prejudice. That same day, a
group of institutional investors filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "District Court") against Wells Fargo
Bank, alleging claims against the bank in its capacity as trustee
for 274 RMBS trusts (the "Federal Court Complaint"). In December
2014, the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss their original
state court action was granted. As with the prior state court
action, the Federal Court Complaint is one of six similar
complaints filed contemporaneously against RMBS trustees (Deutsche
Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and US Bank) by a
group of institutional investor plaintiffs.

The Federal Court Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank alleges that
the trustee caused losses to investors and asserts causes of
action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged
failure to: (i) notify and enforce repurchase obligations of
mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations
and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged events of
default, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care
following alleged events of default. Relief sought includes money
damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and
equitable relief. Other cases alleging similar causes of action
have been filed against Wells Fargo Bank and other trustees in the
District Court by RMBS investors in these and other transactions,
and these cases against Wells Fargo Bank are proceeding before the
same District Court judge. A similar complaint was also filed May
27, 2016 in New York state court by a different plaintiff
investor.

On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the
Federal Court Complaint in which the District Court declined to
exercise jurisdiction over 261 trusts at issue in the Federal
Court Complaint; the District Court also allowed plaintiffs to
file amended complaints as to the remaining, non-dismissed trusts,
if they so chose, and three amended complaints have been filed. On
December 17, 2016, the investor plaintiffs in the 261 trusts
dismissed from the Federal Court Complaint filed a new complaint
in New York state court (the "State Court Complaint").

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


WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL: Inmates Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
in the lawsuit styled NATHAN CAUDILL, and RODNEY SMITH, for
themselves and others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v.
OFFICER HAYES, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00263-TLS-
SLC (N.D. Ind.), Plaintiffs Nathan Caudill and Roger Smith ask the
Court to certify a class of:

   "inmates incarcerated in the General Services Complex of the
   Westville Correctional Facility who on October 8, 2013 were
   repeatedly forced into their assigned dorms by the Defendants,
   in spite of the known imminent danger of attack and whom as a
   result were attacked by fellow inmates and then prison
   personnel responding to the attacks, thereby subjecting the
   inmates to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of their
   rights under the Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
   The inmates that were forced back onto their dorms then
   were subjected to a denial of adequate medical care for their
   injuries and unjustified disciplinary action for the attacks
   that they themselves suffered, in violation of their Eighth
   Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment
   and their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process".

Nathan Caudill and Roger Smith were inmates at the Westville
Correctional Facility in October 2013. On October 7, 2013, Caudill
and Smith, along with approximately 50 to 58 other inmates, were
attacked on their dorms by groups of black/ African American
residents being housed on the same dorms. Caudill, Smith and their
similarly situated white/Caucasian inmates reported to the
prison's personnel (including the individually named defendants)
that they were in fear for their lives; many of the black/ African
American inmates that were left on the dorms also reported fear
for their own safety if the Plaintiffs and their similarly
situated, affiliated inmates were returned to their assigned
dorms. Both the Plaintiffs and their group of inmates, and the
opposing African-American groups requested that the opposing
groups be permitted to be housed separate from one another until a
peaceful resolution could be reached between the members of the
opposing groups.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MyODR1tR

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ilene M. Smith, Esq.
          Christopher C. Myers, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES
          809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307
          Telephone: (260) 424 0600
          Facsimile: (260) 424 0712


WHIRLPOOL CORP: May 15 Hearing on Bid to Certify 7 Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHARLENE DZIELAK, SHELLEY BAKER, FRANCIS
ANGELONE, BRIAN MAXWELL, JEFFERY REID, KARI PARSONS, CHARLES
BEYER, JONATHAN COHEN, JENNIFER SCHRAMM, and ASPASIA CHRISTY on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., FRY'S
ELECTRONICS, INC., and APPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS OF AMERICA,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-KM-JBC (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs will move before the Hon. Kevin McNulty, United States
District Court Judge, at the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on May 15, 2017, for an Order to:

   1. certify New Jersey Class, California Class, Florida Class,
      Texas Class, Ohio Class, Virginia Class, and Indiana Class;

   2. appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   3. appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,
      Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C, and Vozzolo LLC as Class
      Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YrnYq0uT

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, N.Y. 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
          OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700

               - and -

          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          VOZZOLO LLC
          345 Route 17 South
          Upper Saddle River, NJ 07548
          Telephone: (201) 630 8820


                         *********


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  * * *