CAR_Public/170711.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, July 11, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 135



                            Headlines

ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Suits Over Improper Fees in Early Stages
ADVANCED MICRO: Discovery Process Concluded in "Hatamian" Action
ALLIANCE ONE: Chung Seeks Final OK of Class Deal; Hrng on July 13
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "MacDougall" Suit in C.D. California
AMERICAN SECURITY: "Hopkins" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. Florida

AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Faces Garchow Wage & Hour Suit
BERMAN & RABIN: Faces "Madar" Suit in E.D. New York
BLUE BUFFALO: Faces "Zakinov" Suit in S.D. California
BLUE STAR: Court Denies Bid to Send Notice in "Martinez" Suit
BM OF NY: Faces Top Shelf Suit in New York County Court

BOB EVANS: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
CARPATHIA HOSTING: Court Denied Bid to Certify NY Class Suit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Underway
COLLEGIATE HOUSING: Dearman Moves for FLSA Class Certification
COLEMAN UNIVERSITY: Faces "Ketcham" Suit in D.C. Super. Ct.

COLEMAN UNIVERSITY: To Take Deposition of Education Dept Officers
CONCORDIA INTERNATIONAL: "Schwartz" Suit Moved to S.D. New York
CRABTREE & EVELYN: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
DEVON ENERGY: Faces "Brian" Suit in Western District of Oklahoma
DIAZ SUPERMARKET: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA

DOLGENCORP LLC: Faces "Horgan" Suit in District of Vermont
EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismissed "Bauer" Suit
ENERVEST ENERGY: 10th Cir. Flips Atty Fee Award in Royalties Suit
FAMILY RESIDENCES: "James-Howell" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
FLOWERS FOODS: Certification of NMMWA Claim in "Medrano" Denied

FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Ulloa" Suit in E.D. New York
FRIEDMAN'S 31ST STREET: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
GC SERVICES: Faces "Vaughan" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
GENPACT SERVICES: Faces "Arroyo" Suit in E.D. New York
GLOBAL TRUST: Violates Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Singh Says

GREENBOX LOANS: Carias Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
H & M HENNES: Lao Moves for Certification of Classes of Workers
HALAL GUYS: Faces "Matzura" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
HAWAII: Temporary Teachers Not Entitled to Backwages
HERTZ GLOBAL: Suit over Concession Fee Recoveries Underway

HERTZ GLOBAL: 4th Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Dismissed
HIBERNIA CONSTRUCTION: "Cedeno" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Stock Reclassification Suit in Discovery
ILLINOIS, USA: Heritage Operations' Bid for Class Cert. Granted
INSIGHT GLOBAL: Faces "Saldivar" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Court Trims Claims in Securities Suit
INVICTA WATCH: Faces "Horan" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: OCD's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: No Hearing Yet on Class Cert. Bid in "Field"
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss McNeil Products Suit Pending

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Underway in Contact Lens Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Suit over XARELTO Still Pending
JUQUILA MEXICAN: Faces "Cortes" Suit in E.D. New York
KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: "Wyatt" Suit Moved to E.D. New York

LIPOCINE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Suit in Utah
LAGUNA BEACH, CA: Court Certifies ADA Class in "Glover" Suit
LEIKEN INGBER: Sebestyn Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA
LIFESHARE BLOOD: Trisler's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Affirms Stay of Ratepayers' Suit

LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Hess" Suit in Eastern District of New York
MALLINCKRODT PLC: To Defend Against City of Rockford Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: To Defend Against Securities Suit in D.C.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Nguyen" Suit in S.D. New York
MATCH GROUP: "McCloskey" Class Action Suit Underway

MDL 2406: Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Denied
MDL 2740: In-Person Status Conferences Set for July 26 & Aug. 18
MINNESOTA: Objection to Court's Jurisdiction in "Jensen" Junked
MONDA WINDOW: "Lin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage under FLSA
MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Blair" Suit over Roundup Products

MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D. New York
NEW YORK, NY: Taxi NYC et al. Sue over Black Car Licenses
NICOR ENERGY: "Plummer" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Indiana
NUTRIMOST LLC: Werfel Chiropractic Suit Moved to W.D. Pa.
PASEDENA, CA: Faces "Frank" Suit over Pay & Display Scheme

PBF HOLDING: PBF Defendants Dismissed from "Goldstein" Class Suit
POSTMATES INC: "Payton" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
RAPI INC: Faces "Krasniqi" Suit in Eastern District of New York
RAYMOND JAMES: Faces "Kampert" Suit in District of Oregon
REVIVER FINANCIAL: Faces "Singh" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

RITE AID: Faces "Stafford" Suit in Southern Dist. of California
ROSATI'S FRANCHISE: "Cottman" Suit Moved to District of Arizona
SAFEWAY INSURANCE: UM/UIM Coverage Rejections Valid
SE INDEPENDENT: "Colon" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
SILVER BAY: Dell'Osso Merger Class Suit Dismissed

SIT 'N SLEEP: "Ambers" Suit Sues over Mattress Advertisement
SKY VIEW: "Liao" Suit Seeks to Recoup Downpayment for Condo Units
SNAP FITNESS: "Dwyer" Suit Moved to Southern District of Ohio
SPARK ENERGY: Sept. 15 In-Person Status Conference in "Melville"
SPARK ENERGY: Veilleux Seeks to File Amended Complaint

SPARK ENERGY: Appeals Court Vacated Denial of Class Certification
SPARKLE'S HAMBURGER: Payne Moves for FLSA Class Certification
TCS INCORPORATED: Faces "Corbett" Suit in District of Arizona
TRAEGER PELLET: "Leverage" Settlement Deal Has Preliminary OK
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Povolotsky" Suit in E.D. New York

TRINITY HEATING: Boger Sues over Automated or Pre-recorded Calls
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Ct. Strikes Personal Injury Claims in "Chapman"
TRUSTMARK CORPORATION: No New Activity in Suit v. TNB
TWO PETERS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
ULTA SALON: "Wise" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under Labor Code

UNITED RECOVERY: Faces "Farrell" Suit in E.D. New York
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: "Heed" Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
US BANK: Snyder's Bid for Class Cert. Denied Without Prejudice
US COACHWAYS: "Figueroa" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under FLSA
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Singh Sues over Debt Buying Practices





                            *********


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Suits Over Improper Fees in Early Stages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits against Advanced Disposal Services, Inc.,
over improper fees are in the early stages, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the
Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action
complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in
Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in 2014
in Chester County, Pennsylvania.

The 2013 Georgia complaint was dismissed in March 2014.

In late 2015 in Gwinnett County, Georgia, another purported class
action suit was filed.

The plaintiffs in those cases primarily allege that the defendants
charged improper fees (fuel, administrative and environmental
fees) that were in breach of the plaintiffs' service agreements
with the Company and seek damages in an unspecified amount. The
Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue. Given
the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the early
stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential class, and
legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of these cases
cannot be predicted and a range of loss, if any, cannot currently
be estimated.

Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. together with its consolidated
subsidiaries, as a consolidated entity, is a nonhazardous solid
waste services company providing collection, transfer, recycling
and disposal services to customers in the South, Midwest and
Eastern regions of the United States.


ADVANCED MICRO: Discovery Process Concluded in "Hatamian" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 1, 2017, that the discovery process has
concluded in the Hatamian v. AMD, et al., securities class action.

On January 15, 2014, a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v.
AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 (the Hatamian Lawsuit) was
filed against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. The complaint purports to
assert claims against the Company and certain individual officers
for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock during the period April 4, 2011 through October 18,
2012. The complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged
materially misleading statements and/or material omissions by the
Company and the individual officers regarding the Company's 32nm
technology and "Llano" product, which statements and omissions,
the plaintiffs claim, allegedly operated to artificially inflate
the price paid for the Company's common stock during the period.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

On July 7, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims. On March 31, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
On May 14, 2015, the Company filed its answer to plaintiffs'
corrected amended complaint.

On September 4, 2015, plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, and on March 16, 2016, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion. A court-ordered mediation held in January 2016
did not result in a settlement of the lawsuit. The discovery
process has concluded.

Based upon information presently known to management, the Company
believes that the potential liability, if any, will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, cash flows or
results of operations.

Additional information is available at:

             https://www.amdsecuritieslitigation.com/

AMD is a global semiconductor company with facilities around the
world.


ALLIANCE ONE: Chung Seeks Final OK of Class Deal; Hrng on July 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hyun Soon Chung seeks an order certifying the case titled HYUN
SOON CHUNG, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
ALLIANCE ONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-02905-
MCA-LDW (D.N.J.), to proceed as a class action and granting final
approval of the parties' class settlement agreement.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 13, 2017, at 12:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JcX6gFsS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bharati Sharma Patel, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130 - Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
          E-mail: bpatel@wolflawfirm.net

               - and -

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hacksensack Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Angelo Stio, III, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          300 Alexander Park
          Princeton, NJ 08543-5276
          Telephone: (609) 951-4125
          Facsimile: (609) 452-1147
          E-mail: stioa@pepperlaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "MacDougall" Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Honda Motor
Co., Inc. The case is captioned as Dennis MacDougall, Ray Seow,
Prabhanjan Kavuri, Richard Frick, Joseph Ryan Parker, and Bryan
Lentz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and
Honda North America, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01079-
AG-DFM (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Andrew J. Guilford.

American Honda is a North American subsidiary of the Honda Motor
Company, Ltd. It was founded in 1959.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shimon Yiftach, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ AND GROSSMAN
          1925 Century Park East Suite 1990
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 322 0322
          Facsimile: (212) 697 7296
          E-mail: shimony@bgandg.com

               - and -

          Jennifer S Goldstein, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON AND MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429 2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429 2294
          E-mail: jgoldstein@wbmllp.com


AMERICAN SECURITY: "Hopkins" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rodrick Hopkins, and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. American
Security Group A-1, Inc., doing business as: Lock and Key, a
Florida Profit Corporation; MGN Conquest Corporation, a Florida
Profit Corporation; and Michael Nettles, individually, Case No.
17-011337-CA, was removed on June 30, 2017 from the 11th Judicial
Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-22447-FAM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Federico A. Moreno.

American Security is in the security systems services
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flager Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert Mitchell Einhorn, Esq.
          Alaina Brooke Siminovsky, Esq.
          ZARCO EINHORN SALKOWSKI & BRITO, P.A.
          100 SE 2nd Street, 27th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374 5418
          Facsimile: 374 5428
          E-mail: reinhorn@zarcolaw.com
                  asiminovsky@zarcolaw.com


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Faces Garchow Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GARCHOW, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.,
a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. RG17865375 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 26, 2017),
seeks to recover penalties and/or damages for violations of the
California Labor Code, including without limitation, failure to
provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants
from January 2015 to March 9, 2017, as an hourly paid employee.
During Plaintiffs employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was not
provided proper and accurate itemized wage statements. The
Plaintiffs wage statements did not accurately identify the total
number of hours worked and applicable hourly rate for overtime
hours worked.[BN]

AvalonBay Communities is a publicly traded real estate investment
trust focused on developing, redeveloping, acquiring and managing
high-quality apartment communities in high barrier-to-entry
markets of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          Polaris Law Group LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531 4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634 0333


BERMAN & RABIN: Faces "Madar" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berman & Rabin, P.A.
The case is styled as Itschak Madar, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Berman &
Rabin, P.A., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03936 (E.D.N.Y., June
30, 2017).

Berman & Rabin is a law firm in Overland Park, Kansas focusing on
various areas of law.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BLUE BUFFALO: Faces "Zakinov" Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Buffalo Pet
Products, Inc. The case is styled as Vladi Zakinov, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01301-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal., June 26,
2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Anthony J.
Battaglia.

Blue Buffalo operates as a pet food company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE STAR: Court Denies Bid to Send Notice in "Martinez" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert J. Jonker denied the Plaintiffs' motion for Court-
supervised notice to potential FLSA opt-in plaintiffs in the
lawsuit entitled RICARDO MARTINEZ, et al. v. BLUE STAR FARMS,
INC., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00681-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiffs bring the case against the Defendants under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural
Worker Protection Act.  Plaintiffs Ricardo Martinez and Yolanda
Garrido are seasonal farm workers, who were employed by Defendant
Blue Star Farms, Inc., to harvest blueberries.

Defendant Anthony Harry Marr is the president and resident agent
of Blue Star Farms. Blue Star Farms is in the business of
harvesting, packing, and selling blueberries, employing
approximately 140 migrant and seasonal farm workers to pick and
package blueberries each year.

Judge Jonker opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately
identify any potential plaintiffs, obtain affidavits from any
potential plaintiffs, and provide evidentiary support for the
existence of a plan or policy violating the FLSA.  Accordingly,
despite the lenient standard applied to requests for conditional
certification, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed
to establish a basis for provisional certification as a FLSA
collective action at this time.

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


BM OF NY: Faces Top Shelf Suit in New York County Court
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BM of NY
Construction Corp. The case is captioned as TOP SHELF ELECTRIC
CORPORATION, the Plaintiff, v. BM OF NY CONSTRUCTION CORP., the
Defendant, Case No. 3617449 (N.Y. County Ct., June 20, 2017).

BM of NY Construction Corp. is a single-family housing
construction company located in New York, New York.

          COLE SCHOTZ P.C.
          1325 6th Ave 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10019


BOB EVANS: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA TAYLOR, ALICIA RADER, LORA JARVIS, DYLAN JARVIS, and
ARANDA JARVIS, the Plaintiffs, v. BOB EVANS FARMS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03508 (S.D. W.Va., June 23, 2017),
seeks to recover damages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act
for failure to pay appropriate wages as required by law.

The Plaintiffs seek money damages and wages that were not paid as
required by the FLSA, liquidated damages equal to the amount owed,
costs, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and other relief as a
result of Defendant's commonly applied policy and practice of not
paying overtime in violation of federal and state wage and hour
laws.

For more than 60 years, Bob Evans Farms has been providing farm-
fresh foods to restaurant guests and grocery customers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Michael Ranson, Esq.
          Cynthia M. Ranson, Esq.
          G. Patrick Jacobs, Esq.
          RANSON LAW OFFICES, PLLC
          Post Office Box 3589
          Charleston, WV 25336-3589
          Telephone: (304) 345 1990
          E-mail: jmr@ransonlaw.com
                  cmr@ransonlaw.com

               - and -

          JACOBS LAW OFFICE
          7020 MacCorkle Avenue, SE
          Charleston, WV 25304
          Telephone: (304) 926 6676
          E-mail: pjacobs@bjblaw.com


CARPATHIA HOSTING: Court Denied Bid to Certify NY Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
QTS Realty Trust, Inc. and QualityTech, LP said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that on of the Company's
subsidiaries, Carpathia Hosting, LLC ("Carpathia"), was named as a
defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in New York.
Carpathia's customer, Portal Healthcare Solutions ("Portal
Ascend") allegedly had a security breach between November 2012 and
March 2013. Portal Ascend has agreed to indemnify Carpathia in
this litigation and has provided legal counsel to defend
Carpathia. The court denied plaintiffs motion to certify the case
as a class action. The litigation is in the early stages, thus
this litigation is neither probable nor reasonably estimable.

QTS Realty Trust, Inc. ("QTS") through its controlling interest in
QualityTech, LP (the "Operating Partnership" and collectively with
QTS and their subsidiaries, the "Company") and the subsidiaries of
the Operating Partnership, is engaged in the business of owning,
acquiring, redeveloping and managing multi-tenant data centers.
The Company's portfolio consists of 25 wholly-owned and leased
properties with data centers located throughout the United States,
Canada, Europe and Asia.

QTS has elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust
("REIT"), for U.S. federal income tax purposes, commencing with
its taxable year ended December 31, 2013. As a REIT, QTS generally
is not required to pay federal corporate income taxes on its
taxable income to the extent it is currently distributed to its
stockholders.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the Total Bond
Market Fund Litigation, Plaintiff's appeal to the Ninth Circuit is
pending.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The
lawsuit, which alleged violations of state law and federal
securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy,
named CSIM, Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares) and certain current and former fund trustees as
defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated
from its stated investment objectives by investing in
collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than
25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without
obtaining a fundholder vote. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff's federal
securities law claim and certain of plaintiff's state law claims
were dismissed.

On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiff's remaining
claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit,
which issued a ruling on March 9, 2015 reversing the district
court's dismissal of the case and remanding the case for further
proceedings.

Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint on June 25, 2015, and
in decisions issued October 6, 2015 and February 23, 2016, the
court dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiff has appealed
to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is again pending.


COLLEGIATE HOUSING: Dearman Moves for FLSA Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled GREG DEARMAN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COLLEGIATE HOUSING
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-00057-RLV-DCK (W.D.N.C.), asks
the Court to conditionally certify a collective action and
facilitate notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(B).

Mr. Dearman seeks payment of unpaid overtime wages owed to him and
other similarly situated hourly employees due to violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  He seeks conditional certification of
the collective action and authorization to send initial and
subsequent Court-supervised Notices to all current and former
"housing inspectors" of Defendant, nationwide, who work or have
worked for Defendant anytime during the period of March 17, 2014
to the present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Y5LbfUXi

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          15720 Brixham Hill Avenue, Suite 331
          Charlotte, NC 28277
          Telephone: (704) 612-0038
          E-mail: Pgibbons@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: Rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  Jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  Aficzko@stephanzouras.com


COLEMAN UNIVERSITY: Faces "Ketcham" Suit in D.C. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coleman University.
The case is entitled as Alyssa Ketcham, the Plaintiff, v. Coleman
University and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. 2017-CA-004368 (D.C. Super. Ct., June 26, 2017).

Coleman University is a private, non-profit institution, centered
in Information Technology education located in San Diego,
California. Coleman has a technology-based curriculum with
undergraduate, graduate, and distance education academic
programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin T. Morton, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          101 W. Broadway Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Facsimile: (619) 696 7124
          Telephone: (619) 696 6700
          E-mail: bmorton@gordonrees.com


COLEMAN UNIVERSITY: To Take Deposition of Education Dept Officers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ALYSSA KETCHAM, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
the Plaintiff, v. COLEMAN UNIVERSITY, a California Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-
2015-00028151-CU-FR-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., June 26, 2017), Coleman
University seeks to take deposition upon oral examination of the
officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents of the
Department of Education ("DOE"), that are most qualified to
testify.

Coleman University is a private, non-profit institution, centered
in Information Technology education located in San Diego,
California. Coleman has a technology-based curriculum with
undergraduate, graduate, and distance education academic
programs.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benjamin T. Morton, Esq.
          Jennifer E. Duty, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          101 W. Broadway Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 696 6700
          Facsimile: (619) 696 7124
          E-mail: bmorton@gordonrees.com
                  jduty@gordonrees.com


CONCORDIA INTERNATIONAL: "Schwartz" Suit Moved to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David Schwartz, the Plaintiff, v.
Concordia International Corp., Mark Thompson, and Adrian de
Saldanha, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06576 (filed Nov. 11,
2016), was transferred on June 20, 2017 to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-04632-GHW-SN to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gregory H.
Woods.

Concordia Healthcare is a publicly traded pharmaceutical company
based in Canada. The company focuses on attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder, cancer and asthma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Yitzchak Eliezer Soloveichik, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697 6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697 7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
                  soloveichik@bgandg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gerard G Pecht, Esq.
          Mark Allen Robertson, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 651 5151
          Facsimile: (713) 651 5246
          E-mail: gpecht@fulbright.com
                  mark.robertson@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          Peter Andrew Stokes, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
          98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1100
          Austin, TX 78701-4255
          Telephone: (512) 474 5201
          Facsimile: (512) 536 4598
          E-mail: peter.stokes@nortonrosefulbright.com


CRABTREE & EVELYN: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crabtree & Evelyn,
Ltd. The case is captioned as Lawrence Young, Individually and on
Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Crabtree & Evelyn, Ltd., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04777-SHS
(S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Sidney H. Stein.

Crabtree & Evelyn is an international retailer of body, fragrance
and home care products with stores globally. Founded in Cambridge,
Massachusetts in 1968, the brand was acquired in January 2016, by
Nan Kai Corporation of Hong Kong.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
          630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 392 4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444 1030
          E-mail: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com


DEVON ENERGY: Faces "Brian" Suit in Western District of Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Devon Energy
Production Company LP. The case is titled as Robert M Brian,
Trustee of the Robert M. Brian Revocable Living Trust on behalf of
himself, and Robert M. Brian, Trustee of the Robert M. Brian
Revocable Living Trust on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Devon Energy Production Company LP, Case No.
5:17-cv-00708-C (W.D. Okla., June 30, 2017). The case is assigned
to the Hon. Robin J. Cauthron.[BN]

Devon Energy offers crude petroleum and natural gas exploration
and production services. The company was founded in 1969 and is
based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The company operates as a
subsidiary of Devon Energy Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J Blaschke, Esq.
          MICHAEL J BLASCHKE PC
          3037 NW 63rd St., Suite 251
          Oklahoma City, OK 73116
          Telephone: (405) 562 7771
          Facsimile: (405) 285 9350
          E-mail: mblaschke@thelawgroupokc.com

               - and -

          Rachel L Mor, Esq.
          RACHEL LAWRENCE MOR ATTORNEY AT LAW
          3037 NW 63rd St., Suite 205
          Oklahoma City, OK 73116
          Telephone: (405) 562 7771
          Facsimile: (405) 285 9350
          E-mail: rmor@thelawgroupokc.com


DIAZ SUPERMARKET: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL RIOS MARTINEZ, and All others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. DIAZ SUPERMARKET OPA LOCKA, INC., and JIMMY DIAZ, individually,
the Defendants, Case No. 57986358 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade
County, June 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to
compensate similarly situated employees in accordance with the
FLSA by depriving them of the FLSA's required overtime premium.

Diaz Supermarket is a local grocery chain offering variety of
foodstuffs, health and beauty items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
          PERERA LAW GROUP, P.A.
          12555 Orange Drive, Suite 268
          Davie, FL 33330
          Telephone: (786) 485 5232
          E-mail: freddy@pereralaw.com


DOLGENCORP LLC: Faces "Horgan" Suit in District of Vermont
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dolgencorp, LLC
The case is captioned as Howard Horgan, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOLGENCORP,
LLC, doing business as: Dollar General Corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00107-wks (D. Vt., June 26, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge William K. Sessions III.

Dolgencorp, doing business as Dollar General Corporation, operates
as a discount merchandiser.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristin A. Ross, Esq.
          VAN DORN, CURTISS & ROUSSEAU, PLLC
          P.O. Box 263
          Main Street, Route 10
          Orford, NH 03777-0263
          Telephone: (603) 353 4000
          Facsimile: (603) 353 4567


EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismissed "Bauer" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case Bauer v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-03091 (D. N.J.), Judge Jose L Linares entered an order
dated May 19, 2017, dismissing the case.

Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that defendants' motion to dismiss
the Amended Complaint in the case, Bauer v. Eagle, remains
pending.

On May 31, 2016, a federal securities class-action lawsuit
(captioned Bauer v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
16-cv-03091-JLL-JAD) was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey against the Company and the
Company's Chief Executive Officer. On August 1, 2016, plaintiffs
Blake Bauer, Brent Kawamura and Guarang Patel (the "EGRX Investors
Group"), filed a motion requesting the court to appoint the EGRX
Investors Group as lead plaintiff and Kirby McInerney LLP as lead
counsel.  The motion was granted on September 9, 2016.

On October 31, 2016, the EGRX Investors Group filed an amended
class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against the
defendants, seeking compensatory damages and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.  The Amended
Complaint alleges the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act, as amended, by making false and/or
misleading statements about, among other things: (a) EP-6101, (b)
the Company's expectations regarding the New Drug Application
submitted for EP-6101, and (c) the Company's business prospects.

On December 16, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed that motion on January 30,
2017. Defendants filed their reply on March 1, 2017.


ENERVEST ENERGY: 10th Cir. Flips Atty Fee Award in Royalties Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed
the Order and Remanded the cases captioned CHIEFTAIN ROYALTY
COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND
XIII-A, L.P.; ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-WIB, L.P.;
ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-WIC, L.P.; ENERVEST
OPERATING, L.L.C.; FOURPOINT ENERGY, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees,
and SM ENERGY COMPANY, (including predecessors, successors and
affiliates), Defendant, DANNY GEORGE, personally and as Executor
of the Estate of Beverly Joyce George, Objector-Appellant.
CHIEFTAIN ROYALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENERVEST ENERGY
INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-A, L.P.; ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL
FUND XIII-WIB, L.P.; ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-WIC,
L.P.; ENERVEST OPERATING, LLC; FOURPOINT ENERGY, LLC, Defendants-
Appellees, and SM ENERGY COMPANY, including predecessors,
successors and affiliates, Defendant. CHARLES DAVID NUTLEY,
Objector-Appellant, Nos. 16-6022, 16-6025 (10th Cir.).

The class action alleged underpayment of royalties by the
defendants on gas from wells in Oklahoma.  The parties reached a
settlement for a cash payment of $52 million, to be distributed
pro rata to the class members after payment of expenses and fees.
Class counsel moved for attorney fees in the amount of 40% of the
settlement fund, plus interest; and the lead plaintiff, Chieftain
Royalty Company, requested an incentive award of 1% of the fund.
Appellants Charles David Nutley and Danny George were class
members who objected to these requests.  After a hearing on the
settlement and fee requests, the court awarded class counsel 33-
1/3% of the fund ($17,333,333.33) as attorney fees and awarded
Chieftain 1/2% of the fund ($260,000) as an incentive award.

The district court rejected claims by two objectors, and they
appealed.

According to the Tenth Circuit, "the district court failed to
compute attorney fees under the lodestar method, as required by
Oklahoma law in this diversity case.  The incentive award is
unsupported by the record. The record is devoid of evidence from
which a computation could be made. The district court was not
provided supporting documents either when deciding to grant the
incentive award or when determining the amount of the award. The
counsel did not provide detailed contemporaneous records but
offered only approximations and generalities."

"Therefore, in keeping with our prediction of what the Oklahoma
Supreme Court would command, we must reverse for abuse of
discretion and remand for further fact-finding," the Tenth Circuit
held.

A full-text copy of the Tenth Circuit's July 3, 2017, decision is
available at https://is.gd/1td2Zf from Leagle.com.

John J. Pentz, Sudbury, Massachusetts, for Objector-Appellant
Danny George.

Eric Alan Isaacson, La Jolla, California (C. Benjamin Nutley,
Pasadena, California, and John W. Davis, San Diego, California,
with him on the briefs), for Objector-Appellant Charles David
Nutley.

Daniel S. Volchok, Esq. -- daniel.volchok@wilmerhale.com --
WilmerHale, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Appellee Chieftain
Royalty Company, and on the briefs:

     Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
     Susan Whatley, Esq.
     Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
     NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP
     205 Linda Drive
     Daingerfield, TX 75638
     Tel: 903-645-7333
     Fax: 903-645-5389

        -- and --

     Robert N. Barnes, Esq.
     Patranell Britten Lewis, Esq.
     BARNES & LEWIS, LLP
     720 Northwest 50th, Suite 200B
     Oklahoma City, OK 73118
     Tel: 405-843-0363
     Fax: 405-843-0790

Mark D. Christiansen, Esq. -- mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com --
McAfee & Taft, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendants-
Appellees, Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-A, L.P., et al.


FAMILY RESIDENCES: "James-Howell" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LASHAWNE JAMES-HOWELL, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FAMILY RESIDENCES AND
ESSENTIAL ENTERPRISES, INC; ROBERT S. BUDD; CHRIS LONG; and any
other related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 605950/2017 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., June 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Defendants have engaged in a policy
and practice of requiring their employees to regularly work in
excess of 40 hours per week, without providing proper overtime
compensation as required by applicable state law.

Family Residences and Essential Enterprises or FREE is a New York
State organization based in Old Bethpage, New York, serving
individuals on Long Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLOWERS FOODS: Certification of NMMWA Claim in "Medrano" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification to proceed as a collection action in the
captioned case PAUL MEDRANO, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC.,
and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF EL PASO, LLC, Defendants, Civ. No. 16-
350 JCH/KK (D.N.M.).

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants Flowers Foods, Inc., and Flowers
Baking Co. of El Paso, LLC, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., by misclassifying Medrano and the
putative plaintiffs, who are bakery distributor drivers, as
independent contractors.  This misclassification, Medrano claims,
has deprived them of overtime pay due under the FLSA.  Plaintiff
also moves to include state law claim under the New Mexico Minimum
Wage Act.

After reviewing the motion, the response, the reply, and
supplemental authorities, the Court concludes that the motion for
conditional certification under the FLSA should be granted.  The
FLSA expressly allows employees to maintain a class action for
overtime pay on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
"similarly situated."

On the other request, the Defendants opposed and argued that when
one pursues a class action for state law claims in federal court,
the Rules Enabling Act requires the Court to apply Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the class certification
process.  The Court agrees with the Defendants, and therefore, at
this time, will deny the portion of the motion requesting
certification of the NMMWA claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 3, 2017, Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/jVRtt2 from
Leagle.com.

Paul Medrano, Plaintiff, represented by Jenny Faye Kaufman --
jenny@thejonesfirm.com -- Jones, Snead, Wertheim & Clifford, P.A.

Paul Medrano, Plaintiff, represented by Jerry Todd Wertheim,
Jones, Snead, Wertheim & Wentworth PA & Samuel C. Wolf, Jones
Snead Wertheim & Clifford PA.

Flowers Food, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amelia M. Willis,
Esq. -- amie.willis@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart PC, M. Katherine K. Paulus, Esq. --
Katherine.paulus@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Nelson Franse, Esq. -- nfranse@rodey.com -- Rodey
Dickason Sloan Akin & Robb PA & Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. --
Patrick.hulla@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C.

Flowers Baking Co. of El Paso, LLC, Defendant, represented
by Amelia M. Willis, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, M.
Katherine K. Paulus, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,
P.C., Nelson Franse & Patrick F. Hulla, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Ulloa" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as RONAL ULLOA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Mark A. Garbus, and Ronald Forster, Case No. 2:17-cv-03834
(E.D.N.Y., June 26, 2017).

Forster & Garbus is a full service New York law firm concentrating
on creditor's rights law since 1970.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FRIEDMAN'S 31ST STREET: Faces "Matzura" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Friedman's 31st
Street, LLC. The case is entitled as Steven Matzura and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Friedman's 31st Street, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04956
(S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2017).

Friedman's 31st operates a restaurant business[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GC SERVICES: Faces "Vaughan" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership. The case is captioned as Catherine C. Vaughan, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. GC Services Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-03914 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GENPACT SERVICES: Faces "Arroyo" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genpact Services,
LLC. The case is captioned as Lisa Arroyo, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Genpact Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03933
(E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2017).

Genpact is a global professional services firm delivering digital
transformation by putting digital and data to work to create
competitive advantage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLOBAL TRUST: Violates Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Singh Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BOPINDERJIT SINGH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL TRUST MANAGEMENT,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 17cvs12022 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 20, 2017), seeks statutory damages against Defendants arising
from their routine practice of sending initial written
communications.

The case is a consumer class action brought pursuant to the
California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, California Civil Code
sections 1788.50-1788.64, which prohibits debt buyers from
engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices.

Global Trust is a fully licensed and bonded accounts receivable
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
          Raeon R. Roulston, Esq.
          Matthew C. Salmonsen, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
          12 South First Street, Suite 1014
          San Jose, CA 95113-2418
          Telephone: (408) 294 6100
          Facsimile: (408) 294 6190
          E-mail: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com


GREENBOX LOANS: Carias Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR CARIAS, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GREENBOX LOANS, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants,
Case No. BC666454 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 26, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 8 hours per workday and/or more than 40 hours per
workweek, but did not receive overtime compensation equal to one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay overtime hours.

GreenBox Loans is doing business in the residential lending
market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Kierig, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Ave.
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fscmidth@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
                  skierig@haineslawgroup.com


H & M HENNES: Lao Moves for Certification of Classes of Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled SER LAO, as an individual and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. H & M HENNES &
MAURITZ, L.P., a New York limited partnership; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 5:16-cv-00333-EJD (N.D. Cal.), asks the
Court to certify these classes:

   a. All current and former non-exempt retail store employees
      who were employed by Defendants in the State of California
      at any time from December 11, 2011, through the present
      (the "Class");

   b. All former employees who were employed by Defendants in the
      State of California at any time from December 11, 2012,
      through the present, who during their employment received
      their normal payroll wages through check or direct deposit,
      but upon their separation of employment received their
      terminating wages in the form of a Money Network ATM
      Paycard. (the "Money Network Paycard Class"); and

   c. All current and former non-exempt retail store employees
      who received non-discretionary incentive pay and worked
      overtime in the same pay period at any time from
      December 11, 2014, through the present, such that the
      employee received an overtime recalculation, and received a
      wage statement (the "Overtime Recalculation Wage Statement
      Class").

Mr. Lao also asks the Court to appoint him as class representative
and to appoint Larry W. Lee, Esq., and Kristen M. Agnew, Esq., of
Diversity Law Group, P.C., Dennis S. Hyun, Esq., of Hyun Legal,
APC, and William L. Marder, Esq., of Polaris Law Group LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KM8m9wqX

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  kagnew@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com


HALAL GUYS: Faces "Matzura" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Halal Guys Inc.
The case is styled as Steven Matzura, and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Halal Guys Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04955 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2017).

Halal Guys is a halal fast casual restaurant franchise that began
as a food cart on the south-east corner of 53rd Street and Sixth
Avenue in the borough of Manhattan in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


HAWAII: Temporary Teachers Not Entitled to Backwages
----------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Hawai'i has determined that the substitute
and part-time temporary teachers who were employed by the State of
Hawai'i, Department of Education, are not entitled to hourly back
wages, or interest on any back wages (whether per diem or hourly)
under Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) section 103-10.

Plaintiffs in the Garner case include more than 8,000 substitute
teachers who were paid on a per diem basis.  Approximately half of
the substitute teachers in Garner also worked in a part-time
capacity for which they were paid hourly wages.

During a prior interlocutory appeal in Garner, the Intermediate
Court of Appeals (ICA) found that the circuit court properly ruled
that the substitute teachers were underpaid and thus entitled to
their per diem back wages pursuant to HRS section 302A-624(e).  On
remand, the circuit court ruled that the plaintiff class included
the substitute teachers who were paid hourly wages and calculated
the amount of those wages due, and that the plaintiffs were
entitled to interest on their hourly and per diem back wages under
HRS section 103-10.

In 2014, the State paid a partial settlement to the Garner
plaintiffs in the amount of $14,031,874.70, which settled all per
diem wage claims for the claim period from November 8, 2000
through June 30, 2005.  The State continued to dispute its
liability regarding the payment of the substitute teachers' hourly
back wages, and whether the teachers are entitled to interest on
their per diem and hourly wages.

In 2015, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit entered final
judgment in Garner, awarding hourly back wages to the plaintiffs
who worked in a part-time capacity in the amount of $6,789,175.21
for the period from November 8, 2000 through June 12, 2012.  The
circuit court also awarded interest on both the per diem and
hourly back wages owed, in the amount of $13,542,186.74.

The plaintiffs in the Kawashima case include approximately 20,000
part-time temporary teachers (collectively "PTTs") who were paid
on an hourly basis.  Similar to the substitute teachers claiming
hourly back wages in Garner, the PTTs in Kawashima argued that
their hourly pay rate, which was set forth in School Code
Regulation 5203, was linked to the substitute teachers' per diem
pay rate under HRS section 302A-624(e).  Thus, based on the
claimed linkage between Regulation 5203 and HRS section 302A-
624(e), the PTTs argued that because the substitute teachers were
underpaid, they too were underpaid.  The circuit court in
Kawashima ruled that the PTTs were underpaid and entitled to
hourly back wages in the amount of $24,026,329.52 for the period
from February 20, 2004 through June 12, 2012. In contrast to
Garner, however, the circuit court in Kawashima ruled that the
PTTs were not entitled to interest on their unpaid hourly wages
under HRS section 103-10.  Nevertheless, the circuit court
determined that had the plaintiffs been entitled to interest on
their hourly back wages under HRS section 103-10, they would have
been entitled to interest payments in the amount of $9,450,085.40.

On appeal in Garner, the State argued that the circuit court erred
in:

     (1) determining that the plaintiffs' claims for hourly back
         wages were "properly part of this case;"

     (2) determining that School Code Regulation 5203 is an HRS
         chapter 91 rule;

     (3) granting summary judgment in favor of the substitute
         teachers on their hourly back wages contract claim; and

     (4) determining that the substitute teachers were entitled
         to interest on their hourly and per diem back wages
         under HRS section 103-10.

On appeal in Kawashima, the State argued that the circuit court
erred in:

     (1) determining that School Code Regulation 5203 is an HRS
         chapter 91 rule; and

     (2) denying the State's motion for summary judgment on the
         PTTs' hourly back wages contract claim.

The Kawashima plaintiffs also cross-appealed the circuit court's
rulings, arguing that they are entitled to interest on their
unpaid hourly wages under HRS section 103-10.

The Supreme Court of Hawai'i accepted transfer of both Garner and
Kawashima, and subsequently consolidated the cases.

The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiffs are not entitled
to hourly back wages, or interest on any back wages (whether per
diem or hourly) under HRS section 103-10.  Because the Supreme
Court decides the case on the merits, it did not reach the
question of whether the substitute teachers' hourly back wages
were properly within the scope of the Garner plaintiffs' claims.

The circuit court's May 19, 2015 judgment in Garner was therefore
reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the State.
Additionally, the circuit court's May 18, 2015 judgment in
Kawashima was affirmed in part to the extent that the circuit
court determined that the plaintiffs are not entitled to interest
under HRS section 103-10, and reversed on all other remaining
grounds and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the State.

The case is DIANE KAWASHIMA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-
Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAI'I, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; KATHRYN
S. MATAYOSHI, in her official capacity as Superintendent of
Schools; LANCE A. MIZUMOTO, BRIAN J. DELIMA, PATRICIA BERGIN,
GRANT Y.M. CHUN, MAGGIE COX, HUBERT MINN, KENNETH UEMURA, BRUCE
VOSS, JIM WILLIAMS, ANDREA LYN MATEO, and COLONEL PETER P. SANTA
ANA, in their official capacities as members of the STATE OF
HAWAI'I BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondents/Defendants-
Appellants/Cross-Appellees, DAVID GARNER, PATRICIA SMITH, ANDREA
CHRISTIE, ALLAN KLITERNICK, KAREN SOUZA, JO JENNIFER GOLDSMITH,
and DAVID HUDSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STATE OF HAWAI'I,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondents/Defendants-Appellants. ALLAN
KLITERNICK, DAVID GARNER, JO JENNIFER GOLDSMITH, and DAVID HUDSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KATHRYN S. MATAYOSHI, in her
official capacity as Superintendent of Schools, LANCE A. MIZUMOTO,
BRIAN J. DELIMA, PATRICIA BERGIN, GRANT Y.M. CHUN, MAGGIE COX,
HUBERT MINN, KENNETH UEMURA, BRUCE VOSS, JIM WILLIAMS, ANDREA LYN
MATEO, and COLONEL PETER P. SANTA ANA, in their official capacity
as members of the STATE OF HAWAI'I BOARD OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondents/Defendants-Appellants,
No. SCAP-15-0000462 (Haw.).

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's June 28, 2017 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/EkbUDQ from Leagle.com.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Suit over Concession Fee Recoveries Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. and The Hertz Corporation said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the
Company continues to defend against a class action lawsuit over
concession fee recoveries.

In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company ("Enterprise")
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
(Enterprise became a defendant in a separate action which they
have now settled.) The Sobel case is a consumer class action on
behalf of all persons who rented vehicles from Hertz at airports
in Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recovery
fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges during the class
period.

In October 2014, the court entered final judgment against the
Company and directed Hertz to pay the class approximately $42
million in restitution and $11 million in prejudgment interest,
and to pay attorney's fees of $3 million with an additional $3
million to be paid to class counsel from the restitution fund.

In November 2014, Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final
judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
the plaintiffs cross appealed the court's judgment seeking to
challenge the lower court's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or
mislead the class members.

Following briefing and oral argument, on January 5, 2017, the
Ninth Circuit issued an opinion reversing the District Court's
holdings on liability and remedy and vacating the judgment. The
Ninth Circuit also rejected plaintiffs' cross-appeal, finding that
Hertz's actions were not deceptive or misleading.

On January 19, 2017, plaintiffs asked the entire Ninth Circuit,
sitting en banc, to rehear the appeal. That petition was rejected
on February 15, 2017.

Plaintiffs have an opportunity to petition the United States
Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's decision in favor of
the Company. The Company continues to believe the outcome of this
case will not be material to its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

Hertz operates a vehicle rental business globally through the
Hertz, Dollar and Thrifty brands from approximately 9,700
corporate and franchisee locations in North America, Europe, Latin
America, Africa, Asia, Australia, The Caribbean, the Middle East
and New Zealand.


HERTZ GLOBAL: 4th Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. and The Hertz Corporation said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in
the case, In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation,
the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint to add a new plaintiff
was dismissed with prejudice.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Old Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint
alleged that Old Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during
the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in
violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees.

In June 2014, Old Hertz Holdings responded to the amended
complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in
October 2014, the court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to
dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice and
plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint
within 30 days of the order.

In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which
shortened the putative class period such that it was not alleged
to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations that
were not substantively very different than the allegations in the
prior complaint.

In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in
the District of New Jersey, and Old Hertz Holdings responded to
the second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss.

On July 22, 2015, the court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to
dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a
third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015.

On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The
third amended complaint included additional allegations, named
additional current and former officers as defendants and expanded
the putative class period such that it was alleged to span from
February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015.

On November 4, 2015, Old Hertz Holdings filed its motion to
dismiss. Thereafter, a motion was made by plaintiff to add a new
plaintiff, because of challenges to the standing of the first
plaintiff.

The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended
complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was
filed on March 1, 2016.

Old Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
the fourth amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice on
March 24, 2016, and plaintiff filed its opposition to same on May
6, 2016.

On June 13, 2016, Old Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants
filed their reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss.
The matter is now fully briefed.

On April 28, 2017, the court issued an order wherein Old Hertz
Holdings' and the individual defendants' motions to dismiss were
granted and the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint to add a new
plaintiff was dismissed with prejudice (the "Order").

Plaintiffs have an opportunity to appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit within 30 days of the Order.

Hertz operates a vehicle rental business globally through the
Hertz, Dollar and Thrifty brands from approximately 9,700
corporate and franchisee locations in North America, Europe, Latin
America, Africa, Asia, Australia, The Caribbean, the Middle East
and New Zealand.


HIBERNIA CONSTRUCTION: "Cedeno" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CEDENO and KELVIN DE LOS SANTOS, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HIBERNIA
CONSTRUCTION, INC.; MARK RUSSELL; and any other related entities,
the Defendants, Case No. 605947/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 21,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to
the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Defendants have engaged in a policy
and practice of requiring their employees to regularly work in
excess of 40 hours per week, without providing proper overtime
compensation as required by applicable state law.

Hibernia Construction has been in the business of single-family
housing construction since 2010.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Stock Reclassification Suit in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
IAC/InterActiveCorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that a class action lawsuit is in discovery.

On November 21, 2016, following the Company's announcement in its
Definitive Proxy Statement of a proposal to adjust the Company's
capital structure by adopting an amendment and restatement of the
Company's certificate of incorporation (the "New Certificate") to
establish a new class of non-voting capital stock, which would be
known as Class C common stock, and potentially declaring and
paying a dividend of one share of the Class C common stock for
each outstanding share of IAC common stock and Class B common
stock (the "Dividend" and, together with the adoption of the New
Certificate, the "Class C Issuance"), a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the
Company and its Board of Directors purportedly on behalf of the
Company's stockholders. See Miller et al. v. IAC/InterActiveCorp
et al., C.A. No. 12929-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct.).  The lawsuit generally
alleged, among other things, that IAC's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed Class C Issuance
inasmuch as it was allegedly designed to unduly benefit the
Company's Chairman and Senior Executive, Barry Diller, in respect
of his alleged voting control of the Company and would harm IAC's
public stockholders.  Among other remedies, the lawsuit sought to
enjoin the filing of the New Certificate with the Delaware
Secretary of State, as well as unspecified money damages.

On November 22, 2016 and December 12, 2016, two additional
putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against the Company and its Board of Directors
purportedly on behalf of the Company's stockholders and asserting
substantially similar allegations, claims and remedies as in the
Miller lawsuit. See Halberstam v. Bronfman et al., C.A. No. 12935-
VCL (Del. Ch. Ct.), and California Public Employees' Retirement
System v. IAC/InterActiveCorp et al., No. 12975-VCL (Del. Ch.
Ct.).  All three lawsuits have been consolidated as In re
IAC/InterActiveCorp Class C Reclassification Litigation, No.
12975-VCL, and the Court has designated the CalPERS complaint as
the operative complaint in the case and established a case
schedule.  On January 23, 2017 and February 3, 2017, the
defendants filed answers denying the material allegations of the
complaint.  The case is currently in discovery.

While the Class C Issuance was approved at the Company's 2016
Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the Company has agreed not to
effect the Class C Issuance during the pendency of the lawsuit,
and the Delaware Court of Chancery has been so informed.

"We believe that this lawsuit, and the material allegations and
claims therein, are without merit and intend to continue to defend
against them vigorously," the Company said.

IAC is a media and Internet company comprised of widely known
consumer brands, such as HomeAdvisor, Vimeo, Dotdash (formerly
About.com), Dictionary.com, The Daily Beast, Investopedia, and
Match Group's online dating portfolio, which includes Match,
Tinder, PlentyOfFish and OkCupid.


ILLINOIS, USA: Heritage Operations' Bid for Class Cert. Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo granted the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned Heritage Operations Group,
LLC, et al. v. Felicia F. Norwood, Case No. 1:16-cv-10614 (N.D.
Ill.).

Felicia Norwood serves as the Director of the Illinois Department
of Healthcare and Family Services.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1IAxFSOv


INSIGHT GLOBAL: Faces "Saldivar" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insight Global, LLC.
The case is captioned as Claudine Saldivar, An Individual, on
Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Insight Global, LLC, A Delaware Corporation,
Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 17CV312200
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 23, 2017)

Insight Global is an industry leader for IT, accounting, finance,
engineering, and government staffing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
          DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
          1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1835
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Facsimile: (619) 330 1827
          Telephone: (619) 487 0777
          E-mail: Alex@DychterLaw.com


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Court Trims Claims in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Investment Technology Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court has granted
in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss a class
action complaint.

On August 12, 2015, the Company reached a final settlement with
the SEC in connection with the SEC's investigation into a
proprietary trading pilot operated within AlterNet for 16 months
in 2010 through mid-2011. The investigation was focused on
customer disclosures, Form ATS regulatory filings and customer
information controls relating to the pilot's trading activity,
which included (a) crossing against sell-side clients in POSIT and
(b) violations of Company policy and procedures by a former
employee. These violations principally involved information
breaches for a period of several months in 2010 regarding sell-
side parent orders flowing into ITG's algorithms and executions by
all customers in non-POSIT markets that were not otherwise
available to ITG clients.  According to the terms of the
settlement, the Company paid an aggregate amount of $20.3 million,
representing a civil penalty of $18 million, disgorgement of
approximately $2.1 million in trading revenues and prejudgment
interest of approximately $0.25 million.

In connection with the announcement of the SEC investigation
regarding AlterNet, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
with respect to the Company and certain of its current and former
executives and have since been consolidated into a single action
captioned In re Investment Technology Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants made material misrepresentations or omitted to
disclose material facts concerning, among other subjects, the
matters that were the subject of the SEC settlement regarding
AlterNet and the SEC investigation that led to the SEC settlement.
The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages under the
federal securities laws.

On April 26, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint and granted the
plaintiff leave to file a motion to amend its complaint within 30
days from the date of the court's opinion.

ITG is a global financial technology company that helps leading
brokers and asset managers improve returns for investors.


INVICTA WATCH: Faces "Horan" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Invicta Watch
Company of America, Inc. The case is titled as William Horan, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc. and EVINE
Live Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03820 (E.D.N.Y., June
26, 2017).

Invicta Watch Group is an American watch company. The company
trades on the name "Invicta Watch Company" and is marketed by Clay
Greenwood of Utah. Invicta was a company founded in 1837 by
Raphael Picard in La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: OCD's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 2, 2017, that the parties are awaiting the Court's decision
on Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment.

In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been
closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by
direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These
cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as
In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. Following the appeal and
reversal of its initial grant of a motion for class certification,
on remand, the District Court in October 2015 again granted a
motion by the plaintiffs for class certification.

OCD's motion for summary judgment was argued before the Court in
January 2017 and the parties are awaiting a decision. OCD was
divested in 2014 and Johnson & Johnson retained any liability that
may result from these cases.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: No Hearing Yet on Class Cert. Bid in "Field"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 2, 2017, that no date has been set for the class
certification hearing in the case filed by Nick Field.

In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and
McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc.
received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim).
The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of
persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during
the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December
2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-
counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington,
Pennsylvania facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the
defendants violated the BC Business Practices and Consumer
Protection Act, and other Canadian statutes and common laws, by
selling medicines that were allegedly not safe and/or effective or
did not comply with Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The
class certification hearing scheduled for October 2015 was
adjourned, and there is currently no date set for that hearing.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss McNeil Products Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 2, 2017, that the defendants' motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit in New Jersey remains pending.

In April 2016, a putative class action was filed against Johnson &
Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Sales and Logistics Company, LLC and
McNeil PPC, Inc. in New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County on
behalf of persons who reside in the state of New Jersey who
purchased various McNeil over-the-counter products from December
2008 through the present. The complaint alleges violations of the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In February 2017, the companies
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 2, 2017, that Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Companies, Inc. (now Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.)
(JJCI)'s motion to dismiss one class action case remains pending.

In May 2014, two purported class actions were filed in federal
court, one in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California and one in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, against Johnson & Johnson
(J&J) and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now Johnson
& Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI), alleging violations of state
consumer fraud statutes based on nondisclosure of alleged health
risks associated with talc contained in JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder
and JOHNSON'S(R) Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold by
JJCI). Both cases seek injunctive relief and monetary damages;
neither includes a claim for personal injuries.

In October 2016, both cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the District Court of New Jersey as part of a
newly created federal multi-district litigation. In December 2016,
J&J and JJCI filed a motion to dismiss one of the cases.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Underway in Contact Lens Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 2, 2017, that discovery is ongoing in a class action lawsuit
by contact lens patients.

In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints
were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around
the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
(JJVCI), other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix
the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints allege that
the manufacturers reached agreements with each other and certain
distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some
contact lenses could be sold to consumers.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of
the class action cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in
November 2015. In June 2016, the Court denied motions to dismiss
filed by JJVCI and other defendants. Discovery is ongoing. In
March 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Suit over XARELTO Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson continues to defend a class action related to
XARELTO, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 2, 2017.

In August 2015, two third-party payors filed a purported class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana against Janssen Research & Development, LLC,
Janssen Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (as well as
certain Bayer entities), alleging that the defendants improperly
marketed and promoted XARELTO(R) as safer and more effective than
less expensive alternative medications while failing to fully
disclose its risks. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

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


JUQUILA MEXICAN: Faces "Cortes" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juquila Mexican
Cuisine Corp. The case is titled as Pamella Cortes, Leticia
Gonzalez, and Ariana Reyes, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Juquila Mexican Cuisine
Corp., doing business as: Juquila Mexican Cuisine; Juquila Kitchen
and Bar Corp., doing business as: Juquila Kitchen & Bar; Teofila
Mendez; and Cristobal Bonilla, Case No. 1:17-cv-03942 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 30, 2017).

Juquila Mexican is a neighborhood eatery offering plates of
Mexican fare.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: "Wyatt" Suit Moved to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Richard D. Wyatt, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C. also known as: Kirschenbaum,
Phillips & Levy, PC; Elliot Phillips; Irwin Kirschenbaum;
Newburyport Capital LLC; and John Doe, being successor-in-interest
to Newburyport Capital LLC, Case No. 601485/2017, was removed on
June 20, 2017 from the Supreme Court Nassau County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central
Islip). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-03712-
ADS-ARL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Arthur D. Spatt.

Kirschenbaum and Phillips is a collection agency firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335 1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net

The Defendants is represented by:

          Michael L. Kohl, Esq.
          MICHAEL L. KOHL, P.C.
          34 Eagle Circle
          Bohemia, NY 11716
          Telephone: (631) 219 1810
          E-mail: michaellkohl.pc@gmail.com


LIPOCINE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Suit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Morgan R. Brown, Lipocine Inc., and Mahesh V. Patel on
June 12 filed a Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support in the
case, Lewis v. Lipocine Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00182 (D.
Utah).  The case is pending before Judge Dee Benson.

Lipocine, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that, "On July 1, 2016, the Company and certain of
its officers were named as defendants in a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit, David Lewis v. Lipocine Inc., et al., 3:16-
cv-04009-BRM-LHG, filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey. This initial action was followed by
additional lawsuits also filed in the District of New Jersey. The
lawsuits contain substantially identical allegations and allege
that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that our filing of the NDA for LPCN 1021 to the
FDA contained deficiencies and as a result the defendants'
statements about our business and operations were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in violation of
federal securities laws. The lawsuits seek certification as a
class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and
unspecified equitable relief."

"On December 2, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion to
consolidate the various lawsuits and appointed Pomerantz LLP as
lead counsel and Lipocine Investor Group as lead plaintiff. The
court also stated that all filings shall bear the caption In re
Lipocine Inc. Securities Litigation.

"On March 14, 2017, the court granted our motion to transfer the
action to the United States District Court for the District of
Utah. On April 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
against the Company and certain of its officers and/or directors
in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. This
is a purported class action seeking relief for violations of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b5 promulgated thereunder. The allegations in the Amended
Complaint are substantially similar to those in the complaint
filed on July 1, 2016. Plaintiff seeks certification as a class
action, compensatory damages of an unspecified amount, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees, and unspecified other costs, as well as any further
relief the court deems just and proper.

"We anticipate filing a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint by
June 12, 2017, in compliance with the scheduling order entered by
the court on December 20, 2016.  We believe that the claims in the
lawsuits are without merit and will defend against them
vigorously. We maintain insurance for claims of this nature, which
management believes is adequate. Moreover, we believe, based on
information currently available, that the filing and ultimate
outcome of the lawsuits will not have a material impact on our
financial position, although we will have to pay the insurance
retention amount in connection with the lawsuit."


LAGUNA BEACH, CA: Court Certifies ADA Class in "Glover" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Andrew J. Guilford granted the motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled KENNETH GLOVER, ET AL. v. CITY
OF LAGUNA BEACH, ET AL., Case No. 8:15-cv-01332-AG-DFM (C.D.
Cal.).

The class consists of:

     [a]ll homeless persons who reside or will reside in the
     geographic area of Laguna Beach who have a mental and/or
     physical disability as defined under section 504 of the
     Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act and
     who have been, or are likely to be, cited for violations of
     California Penal Code section 647(e), Laguna Beach Municipal
     Code section 8.30.030 and/or Laguna Beach Municipal Code
     section 18.05.020.

Plaintiffs David Sestini, Michael Newman and Richard Owens are all
homeless and disabled persons in Laguna Beach.  The Plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are suing the
City of Laguna Beach and the Laguna Beach Police for claims
relating to their homelessness program.  They allege that the
Defendants violated "Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Eight and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well
as analogous provisions of California's Constitution."

The Court appoints the ACLU-SC and the law firm of Paul Hastings
LLP as class counsel of the Proposed Class, and the Named
Plaintiffs as class representatives.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=36dYBDNo


LEIKEN INGBER: Sebestyn Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn A. Sebestyn asks the Court to certify the lawsuit
captioned CAROLYN A. SEBESTYN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. LEIKEN, INGBER & WINTERS, P.C., a Michigan
Professional Service Corporation, and PAUL M. INGBER,
individually, Case No. 2:13-cv-15182-SJM-RSW (E.D. Mich.), to
proceed as a class action for this class of similarly situated
persons:

     (i) All persons with addresses in the State of Michigan (ii)
     to whom letters in substantially the same form as Exhibit
     "A" were sent (iii) in an attempt to collect a medical
     related debt incurred to William Beaumont Hospital (iv)
     which were not returned undelivered by the U.S. Post Office
     (v) during the one-year period prior to filing of the
     original complaint in this action through the date of
     certification.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and for the appointment of Scott D. Owens, Esq., of Scott D.
Owens, PA, and Adam S. Alexander, Esq., of Alexander Law Firm as
class counsel.

A copy of the Memorandum Supporting the Motion is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cVzj6jIZ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Adam S. Alexander, Esq.
          ALEXANDER LAW FIRM
          17200 W. Ten Mile Rd., Suite 200
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 246-6353
          Facsimile: (248) 746-3793
          E-mail: adalesq@gmail.com


LIFESHARE BLOOD: Trisler's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes denied as moot the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class in the lawsuit titled NATASHA TRISLER, ET
AL. v. LIFESHARE BLOOD CENTERS, Case No. 1:17-cv-00421-DDD-JPM
(W.D. La.).

After the Motion was filed by Plaintiffs Heather Savage and
Natasha Trisler, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Approve
Stipulated Form of Notice of Collective Action, according to the
Court's memorandum order.  In the Joint Motion, the parties
stipulated to conditional certification of this lawsuit as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

On May 15, 2017, the Court granted the Joint Motion, thereby,
conditionally certifying the lawsuit as a collective action.
Since then, notices have been mailed to, and are being returned
by, members/plaintiffs.  Accordingly, the Motion is denied as
moot.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=62qDKiOy


LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Affirms Stay of Ratepayers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the order issued in the putative class action filed by ratepayers
of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power against various
individual officials and employees of DWP and the City of Los
Angeles who manage or administer the DWP or its setting of
electricity rates.

In this case, the ratepayers allege that DWP charges rates in
excess of its costs and then transfers its excess revenue to the
City's General Fund, in violation of the California constitution.

As the result of Proposition 26, approved by voters in 2010, the
California constitution prohibits local governments from imposing
taxes without first submitting them for approval through a popular
vote.  A "tax" is defined to include "any levy, charge, or
exaction of any kind imposed by a local government," but not "[a]
charge imposed for a specific government service" that "does not
exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing
the service."

The district court granted defendants' motion to stay the federal
litigation under the Colorado River abstention doctrine, denied
plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin defendants from
charging rates above DWP's costs and from making future transfers
to the General Fund, and denied plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction staying the state court litigation.  Hence,
Plaintiffs appealed.

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court properly stayed the
case given the pending state court litigation addressing the same
state constitutional issue, staying the case promotes wise
judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial
resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation because it
provides an opportunity for the state court to rule on an
important, and potentially dispositive, issue uniquely within its
expertise.

The Ninth Circuit added that the district court properly refused
to enjoin defendants from charging existing power and water rates
and from transferring DWP funds to the City's General Fund because
plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the balance of equities
tipped in their favor or that an injunction would serve the public
interest. The district court's refusal to enter an injunction
staying the state court litigation in favor of this case was also
proper, the Ninth Circuit further held.  Plaintiffs have offered
no coherent argument otherwise, the Ninth Circuit said.

Accordingly, the district court's Order is affirmed

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's July 3, 2017, Memorandum
is available at https://is.gd/Y2ztf9 from Leagle.com.

The appeals case is captioned R. ABCARIAN; R. REYES; H. REYES,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MELDON EDISES LEVINE; WILLIAM WATSON
FUNDERBURK, Jr.; JILL BANKS BARAD; MICHAEL F. FLEMING; CHRISTINA
E. NOONAN; DAVID H. WRIGHT; MARCIE L. JAMES-KIRBY EDWARDS; JOSEPH
A. BRAJEVICH; ERIC GARCETTI; GILBERT CEDILLO; PAUL KREKORIAN; BOB
BLUMENFIELD; DAVID E. RYU; PAUL KORETZ; NURY MARTINEZ; FELIPE
FUENTES; MARQUEECE HARRIS-DAWSON; CURREN D. PRICE; HERB J. WESSON,
Jr.; MIKE BONIN; MITCHELL ENGLANDER; MITCH O'FARRELL; JOSE HUIZAR;
JOE BUSCAINO; MICHAEL NELSON FEUER; JAMES PATRICK CLARK; TWENTY
UNKOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-56765 (9th
Cir.).


LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Hess" Suit in Eastern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial
Services, LP. The case is captioned as Shimon Hess, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. LTD Financial Services, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03816 (E.D.N.Y., June 26, 2017).

TD Financial is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: To Defend Against City of Rockford Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the Company intends to vigorously defend
itself in the patent/antitrust litigation by the City of Rockford.

On April 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and United BioSource Corporation ("UBC") in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
case is captioned City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et
al., No. 3:17-cv-50107. The complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of all self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories
that paid for Acthar from August 2007 to the present.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company engaged in anticompetitive,
unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially raise and maintain the
price of Acthar. To this end, the suit alleges that the Company
unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product
market by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot; conspired
with UBC and violated anti-racketeering laws by selling Acthar
through an exclusive distributor; and committed a fraud on
consumers by failing to correctly identify Acthar's active
ingredient on package inserts.

Mallinckrodt plc and its subsidiaries is a global business that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes branded and
generic specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies.
Therapeutic areas of focus include autoimmune and rare disease
specialty areas (including neurology, rheumatology, nephrology,
ophthalmology and pulmonology); immunotherapy and neonatal
respiratory critical care therapies; analgesics and hemostasis
products.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: To Defend Against Securities Suit in D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that the Company intends to vigorously defend
itself in the putative class action securities litigation.

On January 23, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Mark
Trudeau in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
captioned Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., No. 17-
cv-00145-EGS. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
all persons who purchased Mallinckrodt's publicly traded
securities on a domestic exchange between November 25, 2014 and
January 18, 2017. The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company
made false or misleading statements related to Acthar and
Synacthen to artificially inflate the price of the Company's
stock. In particular, the complaint alleges a failure by the
Company to provide accurate disclosures concerning the long-term
sustainability of Acthar revenues, and the exposure of Acthar to
Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., No. 1:17-
cv-00171 was filed against the same defendants named in the Shenk
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The Patel complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in
the Shenk lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth in
the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 13, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Amy T. Schwartz, et al., v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al.,
was filed against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The
Schwartz complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the Company between July 14,
2014 and January 18, 2017 and asserts claims similar to those set
forth in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 23, 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Fulton County Employees' Retirement System v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the Company, CEO Mark
Trudeau and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Matthew Harbaugh in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Fulton
County complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders
during the same period of time as that set forth in the Schwartz
lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk
lawsuit.

On March 27, 2017, four separate plaintiff groups moved to
consolidate the pending cases and to be appointed as lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated case. Since that time, two of the
plaintiff groups have withdrawn their motions. The Company intends
to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt plc and its subsidiaries is a global business that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes branded and
generic specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies.
Therapeutic areas of focus include autoimmune and rare disease
specialty areas (including neurology, rheumatology, nephrology,
ophthalmology and pulmonology); immunotherapy and neonatal
respiratory critical care therapies; analgesics and hemostasis
products.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Nguyen" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marriott
International, Inc. The case is entitled as Trang Nguyen, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-04983 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2017).

Marriott International is an American multinational diversified
hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio
of hotels and related lodging facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MATCH GROUP: "McCloskey" Class Action Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Match Group, Inc. continues to defend against the consolidated
case captioned, Mary McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et
al., No. 3:16-CV-549-L, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide class action was filed
in federal court in Texas against the Company, five of its
officers and directors, and twelve underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering in November 2015.  See David M. Stein v.
Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Texas).  The complaint alleged that the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering were materially false and
misleading given their failure to state that: (i) Match Group's
Non-dating business would miss its revenue projection for the
quarter ended December 31, 2015, and (ii) ARPPU (as defined in
"Item 2--Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations--General-Key Terms") would
decline substantially in the quarter ended December 31, 2015.  The
complaint asserted that these alleged failures to timely disclose
material information caused Match Group's stock price to drop
after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015.  The complaint pleaded claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in,
or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement,
the prospectus, and related communications in violation of
Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants
only, control-person liability under Section 15 for the Company's
alleged violations.  The complaint sought among other relief class
certification and damages in an unspecified amount.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was
filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different
named plaintiff.  See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas).

On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an order
granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to Judge
Lindsay, who is presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case.  On
April 27, 2016, various current or former Match Group shareholders
and their respective law firms filed motions seeking appointment
as lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for the putative
class.

On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders: (i) consolidating the
Chan case into the Stein case, (ii) approving the parties'
stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to the
complaint until after the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel for the putative class and has set a schedule for the
plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint and the defendants'
response to that pleading, and (iii) referring the various motions
for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel
for the putative class to a United States Magistrate Judge for
determination.  In accordance with this order, the consolidated
case is now captioned Mary McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-CV-549-L.

On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order appointing
two lead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel,
and a third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison counsel.

On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint
status report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of a
consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the
defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On August 17, 2016, the Court issued an order approving
the parties' proposed schedule.

On September 9, 2016, in accordance with the schedule, the
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.  The new
pleading focuses solely on allegedly misleading statements or
omissions concerning the Match Group's Non-dating business. The
defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on November 8, 2016. The plaintiffs filed oppositions to
the motions on December 23, 2016, and the defendants filed replies
to the oppositions on February 6, 2017.

"We believe that the allegations in these lawsuits are without
merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them," the
Company said.

Match Group, Inc. is a provider of dating products.  It operates a
portfolio of over 45 brands, including Match, Tinder,
PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, Pairs, Twoo, OurTime,
BlackPeopleMeet and LoveScout24, each designed to increase users'
likelihood of finding a romantic connection.


MDL 2406: Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. (MDL No. 2406), No. 2:13-CV-20000-RDP (N.D. Ala.),
Judge R. David Proctor denied the defendants' motion to dismiss
the providers' consolidated fourth amended complaint.

The case involves a number of product markets in which the
defendants participate.  In their motion, the defendants contend
that the provider plaintiffs "still have not plausibly alleged
relevant markets under the Eleventh Circuit's standards, and
therefore the Court should dismiss their rule of reason and
Section 2 claims."  In particular, they contended that the
providers' rule of reason and Section 2 claims are deficient for
the following reasons:

     (1) the providers' alleged relevant market lumps all
         providers into one market or three alternative markets;

     (2) the providers' alleged relevant market implausibly
         excludes many other buyers of healthcare goods and
         services both inside and outside of Alabama; and

     (3) the named providers do not plausibly allege that they
         have been harmed in the vast majority of the relevant
         markets they allege.

The providers disagreed and argued that:

     (1) the defendants adopt the wrong standard of review for a
         Motion to Dismiss in an antitrust action;

     (2) they have plausibly alleged relevant product and
         geographic markets;

     (3) the named provider plaintiffs have standing to represent
         all class members; and

     (4) even though they have properly alleged relevant product
         and geographic markets, a market definition is not
         necessary to state a claims because the providers
         alleged the defendants caused actual detrimental effects
         on competition.

After careful review, Judge Proctor concluded that the providers
have plausibly alleged a proper market.  The judge concluded that
the providers' allegations are plausible, and that the providers
have represented to the court that they can support their market
allegations with expert testimony.

Further, based on the court's "judicial experience and common
sense," Judge Proctor found that the providers' alleged geographic
markets are sufficiently plausible to survive a motion to dismiss.
The judge found that the providers alleged similar injuries
regardless of the geographic market, and that, to be sure, all
providers alleged injury within the state of Alabama.
Judge Proctor explained that at the pleading stage, this plausible
allegation of substantial similarity is sufficient, that any
further questions about potential differences among the injuries
suffered by proposed class members must be adjudicated at the
class certification stage, and does not present a standing
problem.

A full-text copy of Judge Proctor's June 28, 2017 memorandum
opinion is available at https://is.gd/xh2u2A from Leagle.com.

Special Master, Special Master, represented by Edgar C. Gentle,
III, Gentle Turner Sexton & Harbison.

Plaintiffs' Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Davis Cooper,
COOPER & KIRK PLLC, Greg Wright, WRIGHT SCHIMMEL LLC, Harold S.
Reeves, COOPER & KIRK PLLC, Helen Lynne Eckinger --
heckinger@whatleykallas.com -- WHATLEY KALLAS LLP, Howard C.
Nielson, Jr. -- hnielson@cooperkirk.com -- COOPER & KIRK PLLC,
Joseph H. Webster, CHAPMAN LEWIS & SWAN PLLC, Megan Jones --
mjones@hausfeldllp.com -- HAUSFELD LLP, Richard A. Feinstein --
rfeinstein@bsfllp.com -- BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, William
Butterfield -- wbutterfield@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Aaron S.
Podhurst -- apodhurst@podhurst.com -- PODHURST ORSECK PA, Ami
Swank, Ami Swank Law Firm, Andrea Layne Stackhouse, Jones Ward
PLC, Andrew England Brashier -- andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com -
- BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC, Andrew Allen
Lemmon, Lemmon Law Firm, Andrew M. Stone -- astone@stone-law-
firm.com -- STONE LAW FIRM LLC, Annesley H. DeGaris, Anthony F.
Jackson, BECK & AMSDEN, Archibald I. Grubb, II --
archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com -- BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS
& MILES PC, Archie C. Lamb, Jr. -- alamb@archielamb.com -- ARCHIE
LAMB AND ASSOCIATES LLC, Arthur N. Bailey, Jr. --
abailey@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP, Augusta S. Dowd --
adowd@whitearnolddowd.com -- WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD PC, Barry A.
Ragsdale -- bragsdale@sirote.com -- SIROTE & PERMUTT PC, Ben W.
Gordon, Jr. -- bgordon@levinlaw.com -- LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS
MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, Benjamin L. Barnes, Benjamin L.
Barnes Attorney and Counselor at Law, Benjamin J. Sweet, CARLSON
LYNCH SWEET & KIPELA, Braden Beard, HAUSFELD LLP, Bradley A.
Wasser, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID BALTO, Brian M. Clark, WIGGINS CHILDS
PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB, Brian E. Wojtalewicz, WOJTALEWICZ LAW
FIRM LTD, Bruce C. Jones, JONES & SWARTZ PLLC, Bryan L. Clobes,
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP, Carl S. Kravitz,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice, Carl Wesley Pittman, THE
PITTMAN FIRM PA, Casey Langston Lott, LANGTSON & LOTT, P.A.,
Charles D. Hudson, PENN AND SEABORN LLC, Charles C. Hunter, HAYES
HUNGER PC, Charles M. Thompson, CHARLES M. THOMPSON PC, Charles R.
Watkins, GUIN STOKES & EVANS LLC, Christina D. Crow, JINKS CROW &
DICKSON PC, Christopher T. Cain, SCOTT & CAIN, Christopher L.
Coffin, PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP, Christopher T. Hellums,
PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS PC, Clint Sargent, MEIERHENRY SARGENT
LLP, Cyril V. Smith, III, ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP, D. Brian Hufford,
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP, Dale Ernest Akins, AKINS LAW FIRM, Daniel
E. Gustafson, GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, GUSTAFSON
GLUEK PLLC, Daniel Patrick Moylan, ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP, pro hac
vice, Daniel E. Phillips, SOLBERG STEWART MILLER, Daniel A. Small,
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, David A. Balto, LAW OFFICES OF
DAVID BALTO, David Boies, BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, David F.
Evans, HICKEY & EVANS, David J. Guin, GUIN STOKES & EVANS LLC,
David J. Hodge, MORRIS KING & HODGE, David M. Wilkerson, THE VAN
WINKLE LAW FIRM, Deborah J. Winegard, WHATLEY KALLAS LLC, Debra B.
Hayes, THE HAYES LAW FIRM, Dennis G. Pantazis, WIGGINS CHILDS
PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB LLC, Dennis Craig Reich, REICH &
BINSTOCK LLP, Dianne M. Nast, NASTLAW LLC, Donald D. Knowlton, II,
CUSIMANO ROBERTS & MILLS LLC, Donna Smith Cude, JOHN D. SAXON PC,
Douglas A. Dellaccio, Jr., CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS PC,
Earnest William Wotring, Connelly Baker Wotring LLP, Edgar Dean
Gankendorff, PROVOATY & GANKENDORFF LLC, Edith M. Kallas, WHATLEY
KALLAS LLC, Edward K. Wood, Jr., WOOD LAW FIRM LLC, Edwin J.
Kilpela, Jr., CARLSON LYNCH LTD, Ellen M. Ahrens, GUSTAFSON GLUEK
PLLC, Ellen Meriwether, CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP,
Emily Hawk Mills, CUSIMANO ROBERTS& MILLS LLC, Eric R. Belin,
PROVOSTY & GANKENDORFF LLC, Eric B. Swartz, JONES & SWARTZ PLLC,
Erin C. Burns, NASTLAW LLC, Gail A. McQuilkin, KOZYAK TROPIN &
THROCKMORTON PA, Garrett D. Blanchfield, REINHARDT WENDORF &
BLANCHFIELD, Gary E. Mason, WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP,
Genevieve M. Zimmerman, Meshbesher & Spence, Gerald F. Easter,
GERALD F. EASTER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Glen M. Connor, QUINN CONNOR
WEAVER DAVIES & ROUCO, Gregory S. Cusimano, CUSIMANO ROBERTS
KNOWLES & MILLS, LLC, Gregory L. Davis, DAVIS & TALIAFERRO LLC,
Gwendolyn J. Simons, SIMONS & ASSOCIATES LAW PA, H. Lewis Gillis,
MEANS GILLIS LAW, LLC, Hamish P.M. Hume, Boies Schiller & Flexner
LLP, Harley S. Tropin, KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON PA, Henry C.
Quillen, WHATLEY KALLAS LLP, Herman Watson, Jr., WATSON MCKINNEY
LLP, Hope S. Marshall, WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD PC, Irma L. Netting,
Lemmon Law Firm, J. Michael Malone, Hendren & Malone PLLC, J.
Allen Schreiber, BURKE HARVEY LLC, J. Mark White, WHITE ARNOLD &
DOWD PC, James G. Adams, Jr., EYSTER KEY TUBB ROTH MIDDLETON &
ADAMS LLP, James P. Carr, YUHL CARR LLP, James Wells Harrell,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, James M. Terrell,
MCCALLUM METHVIN & TERRELL PC, Janet Brooks Holmes, McKay Cauthen
Settana and Stubley, Jason G. Ausman, AUSMAN LAW FIRM, Jason S.
Kilene, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Jason R. Rathod,
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, Jason J. Thompson, SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
PC, Javier Asis Lopez, KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON PA, Jeannine
M. Kenney, HAUSFELD LLP, Jennifer Williams, GRANT & EISENHOFER PA,
Joe R. Whatley, Jr., WHATLEY KALLAS LLP, Joey K. James, BUNCH &
JAMES, John Clark Davis, JOHN C. DAVIS PC, John Gravante, III,
PODHURST ORSECK PA, John R. Holton, Deal Cooper Holton PLLC, John
Doyle Nalley, LOVELL & NALLEY, John W. Partin, PENN & SEABORN LLC,
John W. Reis, COZEN O'CONNOR, John D. Saxon, JOHN D. SAXON PC,
John R. Wylie, DONALDSON GUIN LLC, Jonathan Charles Little, SAEED
& LITTLE, LLP, Jonathan S. Mann, PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS,
Jonathan R. Voegele, Esq., Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Joseph
Preston Strom, Jr., STROM LAW FIRM LLC, Julia Smeds Roth, EYSTER
KEY TUBB ROTH MIDDLETON & ADAMS LLP, Justin W. Bernick, HOGAN
LOVELLS US LLP, pro hac vice, Karen R. Dow, Baker Wotring, Karen
H. Riebel, LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP, Katherine R. Brown, WHITE
ARNOLD ANDREWS & DOWD PC, Kathleen Currie Chavez, FOOTE MIELKE
CHAVEZ & O'NEAL LLC, Kathleen Simpson Kiernan, BOIES SCHILLER &
FLEXNER LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin J. Stoops, SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC,
L. Shane Seaborn, PENN & SEABORN LLC, Lance Craig Young, SOMMERS
SCHWARTZ PC, Lara F. Phillip, HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP,
Laura Alexander, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Lawrence L.
Jones, II, JONES WARD PLC, pro hac vice, Lee McArthur Scott,
Leslie Lee Ann Pescia, BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES
PC, Linda G. Flippo, WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD PC, Lisa N. Hayes,
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD, Lynn W. Jinks, III, JINKS CROW &
DICKSON PC, M. Stephen Dampier, THE DAMPIER LAW FIRM PC, M.
Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI GRANTHAM GROWER & HEWES PLLC, MICHAEL J.
MCCARRIE, ARTZ HEALTH LAW, Margery S. Bronster, BRONSTER
HOSHIBATA, Mario A. Pacella, STROM LAW FIRM, Mark K. Gray, GRAY &
WHITE, Mark J. Murphy, Mooney Green Saindon Murphy and Welch PC,
Matthew J. Herman, FOOTE MIELKE CHAVEZ & O'NEIL LLC, Matthew P.
Weinshall, PODHURST ORSECK PA, Meghan M. Boone, COHEN MILSTEIN
SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Melinda Coolidge, HAUSFELD LLP, Michael C.
Dodge, GLAST PHILLIPS & MURRAY PC, Michael J. Fleming, KAPKE &
WILLERTH LLC, Michael E. Gurley, Jr., WOOD LAW FIRM LLC, Michael
D. Hausfeld, HAUSFELD LLP, Michael S. Lyons, WHATLEY KALLAS LLP,
Michael P. McGartland, MCGARTLAND LAW FIRM PLLC, Michael L.
Murphy, Michael L. Roberts, CUSIMANO KEENER ROBERTS KNOWLES &
RALEY LLC, Michael J. Sudekum, MANDEL AND MANDEL, LLP, Mike
Miller, SOLBERG STEWART MILLER & TJON, Mitchell Lloyd Berry, DYKE
GOLDSHOLL & WINZERLING PLC, Monte D. Beck, BECK & AMSDEN, PLLC,
Myron C. Penn, PENN & SEABORN LLC, Nathan A. Dickson, II, JINKS
CROW & DICKSON PC, Nicholas R. Rockforte, Pendley Baudin & Coffin
LLP, Nicholas B. Roth, EYSTER KEY TUBB ROTH MIDDLETON & ADAMS LLP,
O'Kelley H. Pearson, HICKEY & EVANS, Patrick E. Cafferty, CAFFERTY
CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP, Patrick W. Pendley, PENDLEY
BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP, Patrick James Quinlan, Law Offices of Patrick
J. Quinlan, Patrick J. Sheehan, WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC, Peter
H. Burke, BURKE HARVEY LLC, Peter Prieto, PODHURST ORSECK PA,
Phillip W. McCallum, MCCALLUM METHVIN & TERRELL PC, R. Christopher
Cowan, THE COWAN LAW FIRM, R.G. Methvin, Jr., MCCALLUM METHVIN &
TERRELL PC, Randall D. Noel, BUTLER SNOW LLP, Rebecca Diane
Gilliland, BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC, Rebecca
A. Peterson, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Rebekah Keith McKinney,
WATSON MCKINNEY LLP, Rex Y. Fujichaku, BRONSTER HOSHIBATA, Richard
S. Frankowski, THE FRANKOSKI FIRM LLC, Richard P. Rouco, QUINN
CONNOR WEAVER DAVIES & ROUCO LLP, Robert J. Axelrod, AXELROD &
DEAN LLP, Robert G. Eisler, GRANT & EISENHOFER PA, Robert M.
Foote, FOOTE MIELKE CHAVEZ & O'NEIL LLC, Robert M. Hatch, BRONSTER
FUJICHAKU ROBBINS, Robert B. Roden, SHELBY RODEN LLC, Scott Allen
Martin, HAUSFELD, Sean T. O'Connell, SHAHEEN & GORDON PA, Stanley
P. Baudin, PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP, Star Mishkel Tyner,
POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS, LLP, Stephen M.
Hanson, LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN, PS, Swathi Bojedla,
HAUSFELD LLP, Ta'Kisha L. Guster, Tammy McClendon Stokes, GUIN
STOKES & EVANS LLC, Temus C. Miles, Jr., McKay Cauthen Settana and
Stubley, Thomas Bender, WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHN PC,
Thomas S. Scott, Jr., Ball & Scott Law Offices, Thomas Michael
Trucksess, Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy R. Holton,
Deal Cooper Holton PLLC, Tyler J. Barnett, YUHL CARR LLP, U.W.
Clemon, U.W. Clemon, LLC, Van Bunch, BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN &
BALINT PCO, Virginia M. Buchanan, LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL
RAFFERTY & PROCTOR PA, W. Gordon Ball, GORDON BALL LAW OFFICE, W.
Tucker Brown, WHATLEYKALLAS LLC, William David George, Baker
Wotring LLP, William H. Horton, GIARMARCO MULLINS & HORTON PC,
William A. Isaacson, BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP & Wilson Daniel
Miles, III, BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC.

Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Barry A.
Ragsdale, SIROTE & PERMUTT PC, Ben W. Gordon, Jr., LEVIN
PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, Mario A. Pacella,
STROM LAW FIRM & Rebekah Keith McKinney, WATSON MCKINNEY LLP.

Defendants' Counsel, Defendant, represented by Zarel Joan Soto,
REICHARD & ESCALARA LLC, pro hac vice, Aaron G. McLeod, ADAMS &
REESE LLP, Adam H. Charnes, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP,
Alan D. Rutenberg, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Allison Nunley Pham,
Andrew Phillip Campbell, CAMPBELL GUIN WILLIAMS GUY AND GIDIERE
LLC, Andrew T. Campbell, CAMPBELL GUIN WILLIAMS GUY AND GIDIERE
LLC, Anna M. Clark, PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, Anne Salomon, KIRKLAND &
ELLIS LLP, Antonio M. Clayton, CLAYTON & FRUGE, April N. Ross,
CROWELL & MORING LLP, Arthur Patrick Fritzinger, COZEN O'CONNOR,
Ashley M. Lowe, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz,
PC, Brian P. Kappel, LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC, Brian K.
Norman, SHAMOUN & NORMAN LLP, Bruce F. Rogers, BAINBRIDGE MIMS
ROGERS & SMITH LLP, Carl S. Burkhalter, MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC,
Casey R. Fronk, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Cavender C. Kimble, BALCH &
BINGHAM LLP, Chad Dwight Hansen, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
LLP, Charles A. O'Brien, III, Charles L. Sweeris, BLUE SHIELD OF
CALIFORNIA, Cheri D. Green, BRUNINI GRANTHAM GROWER & HEWES PLLC,
Christa C. Cottrell, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Christine Varney,
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, Christopher G. Scanlon, FAEGRE BAKER
DANIELS LLP, Christopher A. Shapley, BRUNINI GRANTHAM GROWER &
HEWES PLLC, Courtney B. Green, GREENBERG TRAURIG PA, Craig A.
Hoover, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, D. Bruce Hoffman, HUNTON & WILLIAMS
LLP, D. Kent Meyers, Crowe & Dunlevy-OKC, Daniel E. Laytin,
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Daniel R. Taylor, Jr., KILPATRICK TOWNSEND &
STOCKTON LLP, David A. Coulson, GREENBERG TRAURIG PA, David
Newmann, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, David J. Zott, Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, pro hac vice, Devin Clarke Dolive, BURR & FORMAN LLP,
Douglass C.E. Farnsley, STITES & HARBISON PLLC, E. Desmond Hogan,
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Edward S. Bloomberg, PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP,
Elizabeth A. Jose, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth
Barnett LaBauve, Crowe & Dunlevy-OKC, Emily M. Yinger, HOGAN
LOVELLS US LLP, Eric White, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Erica Zolner,
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Erik F. Benny, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Erin M.
Wilson, LANE POWELL PC, Evan Chesler, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, Gary
M. London, BURR & FORMAN LLP, Gary C. Shockley, Baker, Donelson,
Bearman & Caldwell, Grace Robinson Murphy, MAYNARD COOPER & GALE
PC, Gregory Haynes, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP, Gustavo Adolfo
Pabon Rico, REICHARD & ESCALERA LLP, Gwendolyn C. Payton,
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Helen E. Witt, KIRKLAND &
ELLIS LLP, Henry James Koch, ARMBRECHT JACKSON LLP, Honor R.
Costello, CROWELL & MORING LLP, Ian R. Conner, KIRKLAND & ELLIS
LLP, J. Bentley Owens, III, ELLIS HEAD OWENS & JUSTICE, J. Robert
Robertson, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, JEREMY D. FEINSTEIN, REED SMITH
LLP, Jacob Joel Franz, MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, PC, James A.
McCullough, II, BRUNINI GRANTHAM GROWER & HEWES PLLC, James L.
Priester, MAYNARD COOPER GALE PC, James M. Terrell, MCCALLUM
METHVIN & TERRELL PC, James Thomas Williams, Jr., Brooks, Pierce,
McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Jarod M. Taylor, AXINN VELTROP
& HARKRIDER LLP, Jason Gourley, BODMAN PLC, Jeffrey J. Zeiger,
KIRKLAN & ELLIS LLP, Jennifer K. Van Zant, Brooks, Pierce,
McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Jeny M. Maier, AXINN, VELTROP &
HARKRIDER LLP, Jess Randall Nix, SPOTSWOOD SANSOM & SANSBURY LLC,
Jessica Staiger, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, John D. Briggs, AXINN
VELTROP HARKRIDER LLP, John Stone Campbell, III, Taylor, Porter,
Brooks & Phillips, John M. Johnson, LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE
LLC, John T.A. Malatesta, III, MAYNARD COOPER GALE PC, John
Martin, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, John Gary Maynard,
HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP, John W. Reis, COZEN O'CONNOR, John G.
Schmidt, Jr., PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, Jonathan M. Redgrave, REDGRAVE
LLP, Joshua K. Payne, SPOTSWOOD SANSOM & SANSBURY LLC, Kail J.
Jethmalani, AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP, Karin DeMasi, CRAVATH
SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Kathleen Taylor Sooy, CROWELL AND MORING LLP,
Kenina Lee, AXINN VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP, Kimberly R. West,
WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT LLC, Kristen Jordana Gillis, MEANS
GILLIS LAW, LLC, L. Adam Thames, Taylor, Porter, Brooks &
Phillips, Lauren R. Kennedy, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Lezlie
Madden, COZEN O'CONNOR, Lucile Cohen, NELSON MULLINS RILEY&
SCARBOROUGH LLP, M. Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI GRANTHAM GROWER &
HEWES PLLC, Margot Miller, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, Mark Montgomery
Hogewood, WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT, LLC, Mark Edward
McKane, Kirkland and Ellis, Mary Godwin Menge, SPOTSWOOD, SANSOM &
SANSBURY, LLC, Mary C. St. John, BLUE SHILED OF CALIFORNIA,
Matthew L. Bleich, COZEN O'CONNOR, Matthew G. White, BAKER
DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, Michael Paul Fruge, CLAYTON
& FRUGE, Michael Wyld Lieberman, Crowell & Moring LLP, Michael A.
Naranjo, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Michael Sansbury, SPOTSWOOD SANSOM &
SANSBURY LLC, Morgan Brooke Franz, SPOTSWOOD SANSOM & SANSBURY, N.
Thomas Connally, III, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Norman E. Bailey, Jr.,
Brunini Grantham Grower & Hewes PLLC, Pamela B. Slate, HILL HILL
CARTER FRANCO COLE & BLACK PC, Paul K. Leary, Jr., COZEN O'CONNOR,
Paul A. Wolfla, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, Peter W. Zuger, SERKLAND
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, R. Mark Glover, BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI GRANTHAM GROWER &
HEWES PLLC, Rachel J. Adcox, AXINN VELTROP HARKRIDER LLP, Rafael
Escalera-Rodriguez, REICHARD & ESCALERA, Robert F. Leibenluft,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac vice, Robert R. Riley, Jr., RILEY &
JACKSON PC, Robert K. Spotswood, SPOTSWOOD SANSOM & SANSBURY LLC,
Rowan D. Wilson, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE LLP, SHANNON ELISE
MCCLURE, REED SMITH LLP, STEPHEN A. LONEY, JR., HOGAN & HARTSON,
Samantha A. Robbins, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, Samuel Andrew Diddle,
EBERLE BERLIN KADING TURNBOW & MCKLVEEN, Sarah Lynn Cylkowski,
BODMAN PLC, Sarah J. Donnell, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Sarah S.
Glover, MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC, Scott S. Brown, MAYNARD COOPER &
GALE PC, Scott F. Singley, BRUNINI GRANTHAM GROWER & HEWES PLLC,
Stephen A. Rowe, ADAMS & REESE LLP, Stephen D. Wadsworth, CAMPBELL
GUIN WILLIAMS GUY AND GIDIERE LLC, Sylvia Maria Arizmendi,
REICHARD & ESCALERA, Thomas J. Rheaume, Jr., BODMAN PLC, Todd M.
Stenerson, Shearman & Sterling LLP, Tracy A. Roman, CROWELL AND
MORING LLP, Tyrone Carlton Means, MEANS GILLIS LAW LLC, Victoria
Ann Redgrave, REDGRAVE LLP, Yawanna Nabors McDonald, CAMPBELL GUIN
WILLIAMS GUY AND GIDIERE LLCE, Zach Holmstead, KIRKLAND & ELLIS
LLP & Zachary W. Best, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP.

Anthem, Inc., Defendant, represented by Claudine Columbres, WHITE
& CASE LLP & Glenn M. Kurtz, WHITE & CASE LLP.

Excellus Health Plan, Inc. d/b/a Excellus BlueCrossBlueShield,
Defendant, represented by Stephen A. Walsh, ADAMS & REESE, LLP &
Anna M. Clark, PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP.

Premera Blue Cross, Defendant, represented by Gwendolyn C. Payton,
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, Defendant, represented by
Kathleen Taylor Sooy, CROWELL AND MORING LLP.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Defendant, represented by
Robert S.W. Given, BURR & FORMAN LLP.


MDL 2740: In-Person Status Conferences Set for July 26 & Aug. 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
In-person status conferences are scheduled for July 26, 2017 at
2:00 p.m. and August 18, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate
Judge Michael B. North, Hale Boggs Building, Room B419, 500
Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, in the case, TAXOTERE
(DOCETAXEL) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2740 (E.D.
La.).

Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company has reached
agreements in principle with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in
the case, In Re: Taxotere (Docetaxel).

On February 1, 2017, the Company was named as a defendant, among
various other manufacturers, ins everal product liability suits
that are consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana as part of MDL 2740 (Civil Action No 2:16
md-2740). The claims are for personal injuries allegedly arising
out of the use of docetaxel.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These
actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or
insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims,
could adversely affect the Company and could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.

In March 2017, the Company reached agreements in principle with
the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in this matter to voluntarily
dismiss the Company from all of the law suits in which it was
named and from the master complaint. The Company is in the process
of working with the other parties in this matter to have it
removed from the Multidistrict litigation entirely.  As part of
the agreement, in the event a case is brought in the future with
facts that justify the Company's inclusion, the plaintiffs
reserved the right to include the Company in such matter.


MINNESOTA: Objection to Court's Jurisdiction in "Jensen" Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donovan W. Frank overruled the defendants' objection to the
Court's continuing jurisdiction over the case captioned James and
Lorie Jensen, as parents, guardians, and next friends of Bradley
J. Jensen; James Brinker and Darren Allen, as parents, guardians,
and next friends of Thomas M. Allbrink; Elizabeth Jacobs, as
parent, guardian, and next friend of Jason R. Jacobs; and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Minnesota Department of Human
Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Director, Minnesota
Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department
of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Clinical
Director, the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of
the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State
of Minnesota; Douglas Bratvold, individually and as Director of
the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the
Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of
Minnesota; Scott TenNapel, individually and as Clinical Director
of the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the
Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of
Minnesota; and the State of Minnesota, Defendants, Civil No. 09-
1775 (D. Minn.).

The case began nearly eight years ago, on July 10, 2009, when the
plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendants asserting
multiple violations of federal and state law arising out of
allegations of "abusive, inhumane, cruel and improper use of
seclusion and mechanical restraints routinely imposed upon
patients of the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options program
(METO).  Following extensive negotiations, the parties entered
into a Stipulated Class Action Settlement Agreement.

The Agreement provides for the closure of the METO facility,
establishes requirements regarding restraint and seclusion at
successor facilities, and establishes requirements for the
Department of Human Services (DHS) to internally and externally
monitor restraint use.  The Agreement also provides that the State
shall exercise "best efforts" for appropriate discharge of
residents to the most integrated setting through transition
planning.  In addition, the Agreement imposes requirements
relating to other practices at METO and its successor facilities
such as staff training.

Beyond the provisions applicable to METO and its successors, the
Agreement also includes a section entitled "System Wide
Improvements."  This section identifies goals and objectives in
the areas of long-term monitoring, crisis management, and
training.  In addition, this section imposes requirements related
to the creation of an Olmstead Plan which was agreed to be
developed and implemented within 18 months of the Agreement's
approval.  The Agreement also establishes requirements relating to
two other state facilities, the modernization of state
administrative rules relating to positive behavioral supports, and
the substitution of offensive terminology in DHS publications.

On December 5, 2011, the Court approved the Agreement and
dismissed the claims against the defendants, "reserv[ing]
continuing jurisdiction for the time period set forth in the
Agreement."

On March 24, 2017, the Court held a status conference relating to
the defendants' implementation of the Olmstead Plan which was
developed by the defendants and approved by the Court in the
intervening years following the Court's approval of the Agreement.
At this status conference, the defendants' counsel raised an
objection to the Court's continuing jurisdiction over the case.
Specifically, the defendants' Counsel argued that the Court has
been without jurisdiction since December 2014.  Counsel for the
plaintiffs argued that the Court presently has jurisdiction.

Because section XVIII.B. of the Agreement contemplated the Court's
retention of jurisdiction for a two-year period or "as the Court
deems just and equitable," Judge Frank concluded that the Court's
previous extensions of jurisdiction in this matter were proper
exercises of the Court's authority.  Thus, Judge Frank held that
the Court presently retains jurisdiction over this matter, and the
defendants' objection to the Court's jurisdiction was overruled.

A full-text copy of Judge Frank's June 28, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/nUgWCN from Leagle.com.

James Jensen, Lorie Jensen, James Brinker, Darren Allen, Elizabeth
Jacobs, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark R. Azman --
mrazman@olwklaw.com -- O'Meara Leer Wagner & Kohl, PA, Shamus P.
O'Meara -- spomeara@olwklaw.com -- O'Meara Leer Wagner & Kohl, PA.

Minnesota Department of Human Services, Defendant, represented by
Aaron Winter, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, Anthony R.
Noss, Minnesota Attorney General's Office & Scott H. Ikeda,
Minnesota Attorney General's Office.

Director, Clinical Director, Douglas Bratvold, Defendant,
represented by Aaron Winter, Minnesota Attorney General's Office &
Scott H. Ikeda, Minnesota Attorney General's Office.

Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter, Minnesota Attorney
General's Office & Scott H. Ikeda, Minnesota Attorney General's
Office.

Scott TenNapel, Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter, Minnesota
Attorney General's Office, Christopher A. Stafford --
cstafford@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, PA, Samuel D.
Orbovich -- sorbovich@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, PA &
Scott H. Ikeda, Minnesota Attorney General's Office.

State of Minnesota, Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter,
Minnesota Attorney General's Office, Anthony R. Noss, Minnesota
Attorney General's Office & Scott H. Ikeda, Minnesota Attorney
General's Office.

Ivan M. Levy, Amicus, represented by John W. Ursu --
jursu@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP, Karl C. Procaccini --
kprocaccini@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP & Katherine M.
Swenson, Esq. -- kswenson@greeneespel.com


MONDA WINDOW: "Lin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JIAN PING LIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONDA WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.
d/b/a Monda Windows & Doors d/b/a Monda Window & Door Systems,
MONDA WINDOW & DOOR, CORP. d/b/a Monda Windows & Doors, MONDA
WINDOW & DOOR MFG. LTD. d/b/a Monda Window & Door d/b/a Monda
Window & Door Systems, WONDA LLC d/b/a Monda Window & Door d/b/a
Monda Window & Door Systems, RIBIAO WANG a/k/a Ri Biao Wang,
DENIS WANG, MIN OUYANG a/k/a Mindy Ouyang, DANCY LIN, and
ELIAS ABUBEKER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03737-MKB-RER
(E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage
compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or attorneys'
fees and costs under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiff, at least the hourly minimum wage
for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants willfully failed to
record all of the time that Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees of Corporate Defendants work or worked, including work
done in excess of forty hours each week.[BN]

Monda Window manufactures vinyl and aluminum windows and doors in
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324


MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces "Blair" Suit over Roundup Products
----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS BLITZ, a Wisconsin consumer; KEVIN BLAIR, an Illinois
consumer; GREGORY CHICK, a California consumer; MARIO WASHINGTON,
a New York consumer; TERENCE D. MOORE, a New Jersey consumer; and
RICHARD J. DULNIAK, a Florida consumer, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, a Missouri Corporation; and SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY,
an Ohio Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00473-wmc
(W.D. Wisc., June 20, 2017), seeks money that Plaintiff paid for
Roundup Products that they would not have purchased had they known
the truth, or in the alternative, the amount of money they paid
based on false statement from the Defendant.

This lawsuit involves the unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale
of various Roundup Products, manufactured by Defendant Monsanto
Company and distributed, nationwide, by Defendant Scotts Miracle-
Gro Company.

The Defendants label, advertise, and promote their retail Roundup
(TM) products, including but not limited to their Roundup (TM)
"Garden Weeds" Weed & Grass Killer products (Roundup or Roundup
Products), with the false statement that Roundup's active
ingredient, glyphosate, targets an enzyme that is not found "in
people or pets." However, this claim is false, misleading, and
deceptive, as the enzyme that glyphosate targets is found in
people and pets -- specifically, in beneficial gut bacteria
critical to their health and wellbeing, including their immune
system, digestion, allergies, metabolism, and even their brain
function.

According to the complaint, the Defendants repeat these false and
misleading representations throughout their marketing, including
in video advertisements produced for their websites and YouTube
Channel. Glyphosate targets the enzyme EPSP synthase. The
beneficial bacteria in our gut (and the gut of other mammals), on
which our immune systems rely, produce and utilize EPSP synthase.
Thus, the targeted enzyme EPSP synthase is found in people and
pets. Defendants' claim to the contrary is demonstrably false.

Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational
agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mary C. Turke, Esq.
          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & Strauss LLP
          Telephone: (608) 237 1775
          613 Williamson Street No. 209
          Madison, WI 53703
          E-mail: mary@turkestrauss.com
                  sam@turkestrauss.com

               - and -

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          RICKMAN LAW GROUP
          81 Prospect Street
          Brooklyn, New York
          Telephone: (212) 687 8291
          E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Baum, Esq.
          R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
          BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207 3233
          E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlund.com
                  bwisner@baumhedlund.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Gabrielle, Esq.
          GABRIELLE LEVITT LLP
          2426 Eastchester Rd., Ste., 103
          Bronx, NY 10469
          Telephone: (718) 708 5322
          E-mail: michael@gabriellilaw.com

               - and -

          Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq.
          ANDRUS WAGSTAFF LLP
          7171 West Alaska Drive
          Lakewood, CO 80226
          Telephone: (720) 208 9414
          E-mail: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Miller
          MILLER FIRM LLC
          108 Railroad Avenue
          Orange, VA 22960
          Telephone: (540) 672 4224
          E-mail: mmiller@millerfirmllc.com

               - and -

          Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C.
          700 Broadway
          New York. NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558 5500
          E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Robert F. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY & MADONNA, LLP
          48 Dewitt Mills Road
          Hurley, New York 12443
          Telephone: (845) 481 2622


MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mullooly, Jeffrey,
Rooney & Flynn LLP. The case is captioned as Hindy Kalmenson, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn LLP, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03934 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2017).

Mullooly & Jeffrey is a debt collection firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NEW YORK, NY: Taxi NYC et al. Sue over Black Car Licenses
---------------------------------------------------------
TAXI NYC LLC, GGS TAXI LLC, JASPREET SINGH, and D&P BAIDWAN LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK and THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND
LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, the Defendants, Case No. 708602/2017 (N.Y.
Sup., Ct., June 21, 2017), seeks to issue an order requiring
Defendants to rescind the auction sale transactions of "black
car".

Each of the Plaintiffs purchased an independent, wheelchair-
accessible taxi medallion directly from Defendants in a February
2014 auction organized and promoted by the Commission. The TLC,
almost immediately after the auctions, proceeded to grant licenses
for "black car" bases to companies that plainly did not qualify
for those licenses under both existing New York law and TLC
regulations, including, and most prominently, to affiliates of
Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber), a California taxi company with
operations around the world. The TLC also proceeded to grant tens
of thousands of black car vehicle licenses that also failed to
comply with local law. The improperly licensed black cars and
black car bases granted to Uber and similar entities attracted
more than 20,000 black cars over the course of several months, a
sudden and dramatic increase in the size of the black car fleet
and in the number of taxis serving passengers, especially in
Manhattan and at the New York airports.

New York is a state in the northeastern United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686 0114
          E-mail: kaufman@whafh.com
                  gmn@whafh.com
                  kamin@whafh.com

               - and -

          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL L. ACKMAN
          222 Broadway, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (917) 282 8178
          E-mail: d.ackman@comcast.net


NICOR ENERGY: "Plummer" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KRISTEN PLUMMER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NICOR
ENERGY SERVICES COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 49D10-1705-PL-
020673, was removed on June 23, 2017 from the Marion Superior
Court, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana (Indianapolis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-02177-WTL-MPB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge William T. Lawrence.

Nicor Energy Services, doing business as Nicor National, offers
home warranty, energy efficiency, and energy management plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636 6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636 2593
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Vess Allen Miller, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636 6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636 2593
          E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  vmiller@cohenandmalad.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Munson, Esq.
          Wayne C. Turner, Esq.
          HOOVER HULL TURNER LLP
          111 Monument Circle, Suite 4400
          P.O. Box 44989
          Indianapolis, IN 46244-0989
          Telephone: (317) 822 4400
          Facsimile: (317) 822 0234
          E-mail: kmunson@hooverhullturner.com
                  wturner@hooverhullturner.com


NUTRIMOST LLC: Werfel Chiropractic Suit Moved to W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled WERFEL CHIROPRACTIC, PC and HOWARD
WERFEL, for themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. NUTRIMOST LLC, NUTRIMOST DOCTORS, LLC, and DR.
RAYMOND WISNIEWSKI, the Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-05514, was
removed on June 30, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00878-NBF to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Nora Barry Fischer.

NutriMost creates personalized food plans that focus on fresh,
healthy foods.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott Levenson, Esq.
          44 S. Maple Avenue
          Ridgewood, NJ 07450
          Telephone: (201) 259 0289
          E-mail: slevensonesq@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel Mahony Taylor, Jr.
          MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
          525 William Penn Place
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 355 4957
          Facsimile: (412) 642 2380
          E-mail: dtaylor@margolisedelstein.com

               - and -

          Michael Helmut Bauscher, Esq.
          CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN, LLP(NYC)
          2 Wall Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 238 8785
          Facsimile: (212) 732 3232
          E-mail: bauscher@clm.com

               - and -

          Judith Ann Lockhart
          CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN LLP
          2 Wall Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 238 8603
          Facsimile: (212) 732 3232
          E-mail: lockhart@clm.com


PASEDENA, CA: Faces "Frank" Suit over Pay & Display Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
GEOFFREY FRANK, an individual, and all others similarly situated;
DEVIN SWANSON, an individual and all others similarly-situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PASEDENA, the Defendant, Case No.
BC666535 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 26, 2017), seeks to recover
interest on all sums refunded, cost of suit, attorneys' fees of
class counsel, and other relief as a result of the invalidity of
City's "Pay & Display" scheme.

According to the complaint, Pasadena has knowingly enforced an
invalid and improper "Pay & Display" parking scheme. Relentlessly
enforced and unmercifully administered, the City's system requires
individuals who park vehicles ("Parkers") within Pasedena's
Parking Zone Meter Districts to purchase and display time-stamped
tickets from City-operated kiosks. As for those who fail to
purchase kiosk tickets, who don't display them, or who exceed
designated time periods, woe unto them. Parkers found in violation
of Pasedena's Pay & Display system are swiftly issued "Expired
Meter" citations with fines in excess per violation.

Pasadena is a city in California, northeast of downtown Los
Angeles. In the center, Old Pasadena is a shopping and dining
district known for its Victorian and art deco buildings.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Bruce Abelson, Esq.
          Vincent H. Herron, Esq.
          Marc D. Halpern, Esq.
          ABELSON HERRON HALPERN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1550
          Los Angeles, CA 90071 1559
          Telephone: (213) 402 1900
          Facsimile: (213) 402 1901
          E-mail: mabelson@abelsonherron.com
                  vherron@abelsonherron.com
                  mhalpern@abelsonherron.com


PBF HOLDING: PBF Defendants Dismissed from "Goldstein" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Arnold Goldstein et al v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02477 (C.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs John Covas,
Arnold Goldstein, Gisela Janette La Bella filed:

     -- a Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan on June 26, 2017; and

     -- a First Amended Complaint against Defendants on
        July 3, 2017.

The Hon. Dale S Fischer presides over the case.

In an Order dated May 30, 2017, the Court granted in part and
denied in part, a Joint Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings.  According to Judge Fischer, the motion is
granted with respect to the PBF Defendants other than Torrance
Refining Company LLC.  It is denied in all other respects.  Leave
to amend to addallegations against the dismissed parties is
granted.  An amended complaint must be filed and served no later
than July 3, 2017. Failure to file by that date will waive the
right to do so.  The Court does not grant leave to add new
defendants or new claims.  Leave to add defendants or new claims
must be sought by a separate, properly noticed motion.

Defendants' response to the amended complaint is due July 24,
2017.

PBF Holding Company LLC and PBF Finance Corporation said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that "On February
17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation,
et al., PBF Energy Inc. and PBF Energy Company LLC, and our
subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining
Company LLC and the manager of our Torrance refinery along with
Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as defendants in a class action
and representative action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold
Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella and others
similarly situated. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles and alleges
negligence, strict liability, ultrahazardous activity, a
continuing private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a
continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and
trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic
precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance refinery which was
then owned and operated by Exxon. The operation of the Torrance
refinery by the PBF entities subsequent to our acquisition in July
2016 is also referenced in the complaint."

"To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP
explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for any liabilities
that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement
relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery. While we are
evaluating the allegations and cannot currently estimate the
amount or the timing of the resolution of this matter, we believe
the outcome will not have a material impact on our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
together with its consolidated subsidiaries, owns and operates oil
refineries and related facilities in North America. PBF Holding is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of PBF Energy Company LLC ("PBF LLC").
PBF Energy Inc. ("PBF Energy") is the sole managing member of, and
owner of an equity interest representing approximately 96.6% of
the outstanding economic interest in, PBF LLC as of March 31,
2017. PBF Investments LLC ("PBF Investments"), Toledo Refining
Company LLC ("Toledo Refining" or "TRC"), Paulsboro Refining
Company LLC ("Paulsboro Refining" or "PRC"), Delaware City
Refining Company LLC ("Delaware City Refining" or "DCR"),
Chalmette Refining, L.L.C. ("Chalmette Refining"), PBF Western
Region LLC ("PBF Western Region"), Torrance Refining Company LLC
("Torrance Refining") and Torrance Logistics Company LLC are PBF
LLC's principal operating subsidiaries and are all wholly-owned
subsidiaries of PBF Holding.


POSTMATES INC: "Payton" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN PAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. POSTMATES INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04551 (C.D.
Cal., June 20, 2017), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting
from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), thereby invading
Plaintiff's privacy.

The Plaintiff and the members of the Class have all suffered
irreparable harm as a result of the Defendant's unlawful and
wrongful conduct.  Absent a class action, the Class will continue
to face the potential for irreparable harm.  In addition, these
violations of law will be allowed to proceed without remedy and
Defendant will likely continue such illegal conduct.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 877 206 4741
          Facsimile: 866 633 0228
          E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com
                  tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com


RAPI INC: Faces "Krasniqi" Suit in Eastern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rapi Inc. The case
is captioned as Arben Krasniqi, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rapi Inc., doing
business as: Brioso Ristorante; Pietro DiMaggio; and Raffaele
DiMaggio, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03945 (E.D.N.Y., June
30, 2017).

According to the its website, Rapi has more than 30 years of cargo
handling experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


RAYMOND JAMES: Faces "Kampert" Suit in District of Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Raymond James
Financial, Inc. The case is titled as Dustin Kampert, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Raymond James Financial, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-
01036-MC (D. Ore., June 30, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Michael J. McShane.

Raymond James Financial is an American diversified holding company
providing financial services to individuals, corporations and
municipalities.BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Baxter, Esq.
          BAXTER & BAXTER, LLP
          8835 S.W. Canyon Lane, Suite 130
          Portland, OR 97225-3429
          Telephone: (503) 297 9031
          Facsimile: (503) 291 9172
          E-mail: justin@baxterlaw.com


REVIVER FINANCIAL: Faces "Singh" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reviver Financial,
LLC. The case is captioned as Bopinderjit Singh, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Reviver Financial, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company ,and
Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV312020
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 20, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
          12 South Fir St Street, Suite 1014
          San Jose, CA 95113-2418
          Telephone: (408) 294 6100
          Facsimile: (408) 294 6190
          E-mail: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com


RITE AID: Faces "Stafford" Suit in Southern Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rite Aid
Corporation. The case is captioned as Bryon Stafford, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Rite Aid Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01340-BEN-
JLB (S.D. Cal., June 30, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Roger T. Benitez.

Rite Aid is a drugstore chain in the United States and a Fortune
500 company. It is headquartered in East Pennsboro Township,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, near Camp Hill.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525 3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525 3991
          E-mail: gdelgaizo@robbinsarroyo.com


ROSATI'S FRANCHISE: "Cottman" Suit Moved to District of Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Robert P. Cottman, Michael A
Baker, Daniel L. Theobald, and David G. Naskrent, single men, and
a class of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Matthew J
Surma, husband; Corrina Surma, wife; Cory Lee Hughes, spouse,
husband and wife; Corey B. Cleghorn, spouse, husband and wife;
DPHC Enterprise Incorporated, an Arizona corporation; DHSC
Enterprise Incorporated, an Illinois corporation; Rosati's
Franchise & Development LLC, an Illinois corporation; Unknown
Parties, named as: John Does I-X, the Defendant, Case No. CV2017-
008567, was removed on June 26, 2017 from the Maricopa County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District Court
of District of Arizona (Phoenix Division). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02045-BSB to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade.

Rosati's Franchise is in the restaurant management services
business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Emily Adele Tornabene, Esq.
          Nicholas Jason Enoch, Esq.
          Stanley Lubin, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH PC
          349 N 4th Ave.
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 234 0008
          Facsimile: (602) 626 3586
          E-mail: emily@lubinandenoch.com
                  nicholas.enoch@azbar.org
                  stan@lubinandenoch.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey Harris Wolf, Esq.
          Robert George Vaught, Esq.
          QUARLES & BRADY LLP - PHOENIX, AZ
          One Renaissance Square
          2 N Central Ave.
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391
          Telephone: (602) 229 5207
          Facsimile: (602) 229 5690
          E-mail: jeffrey.wolf@quarles.com
                  robert.vaught@quarles.com


SAFEWAY INSURANCE: UM/UIM Coverage Rejections Valid
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Betty E. Ullman, for herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAFEWAY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and RICHARD BAILEY, Defendant, No.
34,89 (N.M. Ct. App.), held that Safeway Insurance Company
obtained valid rejections of uninsured and underinsured motorist
(UM/UIM) coverage in compliance with New Mexico law.

Safeway filed an interlocutory appeal from the denial of its
motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of class action
claims.  Safeway sought to prove that its insurance documents were
legally adequate to support its rejections of claims of class
members to UM/UIM benefits.  The district court certified that the
case involved "a controlling question of law as to which there is
[a] substantial . . . difference of opinion and that an immediate
appeal . . . may materially advance the ultimate termination of
the litigation."  The court identified that controlling question
as "whether Safeway has complied with New Mexico law in obtaining
waivers of [UM/UIM] coverage insurance, including stacked
coverage, from its insureds."

Safeway asked the Court of Appeals of New Mexico to:

     (1) rule that Safeway obtained valid rejections of UM/UIM
         coverage in compliance with New Mexico law;

     (2) reverse the order denying Safeway's class-related motion
         for summary judgment; and

     (3) remand with instructions to dismiss the class claims
         with prejudice and de-certify the class because "a
         ruling on the certified question in Safeway's favor
         means that the alleged violation of law that grounds the
         class definition and class claims does not exist,
         leaving no common question appropriate for class
         litigation."

The appellate court held that Safeway's forms complied with New
Mexico law in all respects as to what is required for a valid
rejection of UM/UIM coverage, including stacking.  The appellate
court reversed the district court's determination to the contrary
and remand to the district court for whatever further proceedings
may be required.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's June 28, 2017 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/sYRuhT from Leagle.com.

Law Offices of Geoffrey R. Romero Geoffrey R. Romero, Albuquerque,
NM.

Garcia Ives Nowara, LLC, Matthew L. Garcia. Albuquerque, NM.

Freedman, Boyd, Hollander, Goldberg, Urias & Ward, P.A., Joseph
Goldberg -- jg@fbdlaw.com -- David A. Freedman -- daf@fbdlaw.com -
- Vincent J. Ward -- vjw@fbdlaw.com -- Albuquerque, NM.

Vargas Law Firm, LLC, Ray M. Vargas, II, Albuquerque, NM.

O'Connell Law LLC, Erin B. O'Connell, Albuquerque, NM, for
Appellees.

Butt, Thornton & Baehr, P.C., Rheba Rutkowski --
rruthkowski@btblaw.com -- James H. Johansen --
jhjohansen@btblaw.com -- Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.


SE INDEPENDENT: "Colon" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Richard Colon, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SE
Independent Delivery Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
17-CA-5078, was removed on June 30, 2017 from the 13th Judicial
Circuit, Hillsborough County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-01578-JDW-MAP to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James D. Whittemore.

SE Independent is an innovative company created to service retail
sellers of merchandise by providing trained, independent
contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher R. Turner, Esq.
          William G. Osborne, Esq.
          1305 E Robinson St
          WILLIAM G. OSBORNE, PA
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 796 2278
          Facsimile: (407) 630 8737
          E-mail: eservice@crtlegal.com
                  Bill@osborneattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jamie Zysk Isani, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP
          1111 Brickell Ave., Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 810 2500
          Facsimile: (305) 810 2460
          E-mail: jisani@hunton.com


SILVER BAY: Dell'Osso Merger Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
The case, Dell'Osso v. Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp. et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-00969 (D. Md.), has been dismissed.

Maryland District Judge James K Bredar on May 9 entered an order
granting a Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Robert Dell'Osso.

Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiff in the Dell'Osso
class action lawsuit has withdrawn his motion for preliminary
injunction.

On February 27, 2017, Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp., the General
Partner, and the Operating Partnership (collectively referred to
as the "Company Parties"), entered into a definitive Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Tricon Capital Group,
Inc., a company incorporated under the laws of the Province of
Ontario ("Tricon Ultimate Parent"), TAH Acquisition Holdings LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company ("Tricon Parent"), and TAH
Acquisition LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("Tricon LP" and,
together with Tricon Ultimate Parent and Tricon Parent, the
"Tricon Parties"). Subject to the terms and conditions of the
Merger Agreement, Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp. will merge with
and into Tricon Parent, with Tricon Parent being the surviving
entity (the "Merger"). The board of directors of Silver Bay Realty
Trust Corp. has unanimously approved the Merger Agreement, the
Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement.

In connection with the Merger, two purported class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of stockholders of the
Company. On April 5, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Scarantino v. Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp. et al.,
0:17-cv-01066-PAM-TNL (the "Scarantino Action"), was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against
Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp., the Operating Partnership, and the
General Partner (the "Company Parties"), members of the Company's
board of directors and the Parent Parties. On April 7, 2017, a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Dell'Osso v. Silver Bay
Realty Trust Corp. et al., 1:17-cv-00969-JKB (the "Dell'Osso
Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland against the Company Parties and members of
the Company's board of directors. The lawsuits allege, among other
matters, that the Company's definitive proxy statement relating to
the Merger contained certain material omissions.

On April 12, 2017, the plaintiff in the Dell'Osso Action filed a
motion for preliminary injunction that sought to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the Merger scheduled for May 5, 2017 unless
certain additional disclosures relating to the Merger.

On April 21, 2017, the plaintiffs in both Actions agreed to
withdraw any pending motions for preliminary injunction, and to
dismiss their individual claims as moot, in return for the
Company's agreement to make certain the supplemental disclosures.

On April 24, 2017, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K
with the SEC making certain supplemental disclosures to the
definitive proxy statement related to the Merger. That same day,
the plaintiff in the Dell'Osso Action filed a notice of withdrawal
of his motion for preliminary injunction.

The plaintiffs in both Actions may seek an award of attorneys'
fees in connection with the lawsuits, and the parties have
reserved all rights and arguments in connection with any such
claim.

On May 9, 2017, Tricon Capital Group Inc. (TSX: TCN), a principal
investor and asset manager focused on the residential real estate
industry, announced it has completed its previously announced
acquisition of Silver Bay.  The transaction values Silver Bay at
an enterprise value of approximately $1.4 billion (before
transaction costs), consisting of an equity purchase price of
approximately $820 million ($21.50 per share) and approximately
$600 million of existing debt (net of cash on hand), which was
concurrently refinanced.

Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp. is a Maryland corporation that
focuses on the acquisition, renovation, leasing and management of
single-family properties in select markets in the United States.


SIT 'N SLEEP: "Ambers" Suit Sues over Mattress Advertisement
------------------------------------------------------------
SHIRLEY AMBERS, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SIT'N SLEEP, INC., a
California Corporation, and DOES 1 TO 100, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 666416 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 26, 2017),
seeks to restitution and award of attorney's fees as a result of
SNS false advertisement and promotion of products.

According to the complaint, SNS's advertises that it will beat any
competitor's advertised price or provide consumers with a "free"
mattress, all while knowing that all or virtually all of SNS's
mattresses are private labeled, meaning no other retailer sells
the same mattress as SNS. Because of this, SNS will never have to
beat ad advertised price or give away a free mattress, because no
other retailer sells or advertises the same mattress as SNS.

Sit 'n Sleep owns and operates a chain of sleep shops selling
mattresses and related accessories in Southern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin C. Schreiber, Esq.
          Eric A. Schreiber, Esq.
          Ean M. Schreiber, Esq.
          SCHREIBER & SCHREIBER, INC.
          166633 Ventura Boulevard Suite 711
          Encino, CA 91436 2068
          Telephone: (818) 789 2068
          Facsimile: (818) 789 3391


SKY VIEW: "Liao" Suit Seeks to Recoup Downpayment for Condo Units
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yu Se Liao Liao, Jenny Chen Liao, and all other similarly situated
individuals and entities who entered into purchase agreements
and/or purchased condominium units in the
Grand One at Sky View Parc Condominium, the Plaintiffs, v. Sky
View Parc II, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 708543/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., June 20, 2017), wants the Defendant to return downpayments
paid by Plaintiffs to Defendant and/or their escrow agent.

The Defendant is the sponsor of a condominium offering plan for
the Grand One at Sky View Parc Condominium, formerly known as the
Sky View Parc Residential Condominium Tower Six located at 131-05
40th Road, Flushing, County of Queens, City and State of New York
11354. The Plaintiffs agreed to purchase condominium units in the
Condominium but only if they were going to purchase all of the
condominium units that they contracted for.

According to the complaint, Yu Se Liao Liao paid the sum of
$437,777.60 to Levitt & Coccio, LLP acting as escrow agent for
Defendant as a downpayment for the purchase of Condominium Unit
PH1J.  Jenny Chen Liao paid the sum of $199,988.80 to Levitt &
Coccio, LLP acting as escrow agent for Defendant as a downpayment
for the purchase of Condominium Unit 11J and Condominium Unit 11K.
Plaintiff Jenny Chen Liao paid the sum of $58,188.80 to Levitt &
Coccio, LLP acting as escrow agent for Defendant as a downpayment
for the purchase of Condominium Unit PH1I. Jenny Chen Liao paid
the sum of $57,688.80 to Levitt & Coccio, LLP acting as escrow
agent for Defendant as a downpayment for the purchase of
Condominium Unit PH2I. The total amount of the downpayments
totalled $1,135,399.20 for all of the condominium units that
Plaintiffs contracted to purchase from Defendant.

At the time that Defendant offered to sell condominium units to
Plaintiffs, Defendant was not the sponsor of the Condominium. At
the time that Defendant offered to sell condominium units to
Plaintiffs, Defendant was unauthorized by the New York State
Department of Law to act as the sponsor of the Condominium. The
Defendant fraudulently induced Plaintiff into executing the
purchase agreements based on false promises made in the
Condominium Offering Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary S. Rosen, Esq.
          ROSEN LAW LLC
          Attorneys for Plaintiffs
          216 Lakeville Road
          Great Neck, NY 11020
          Telephone: (516) 437 3400


SNAP FITNESS: "Dwyer" Suit Moved to Southern District of Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Thomas Dwyer, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Snap
Fitness, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. A1702841, was removed on
June 30, 2017 from the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
(Cincinnati). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-
00455-MRB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Michael R. Barrett.

Snap Fitness is a privately owned and operated health and fitness
club founded in 2003 by Peter Taunton.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Erin Leigh Hoffman, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center, 90 S. 7th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766 8043
          Facsimile: (612) 766 1600
          E-mail: erin.hoffman@faegreBD.com


SPARK ENERGY: Sept. 15 In-Person Status Conference in "Melville"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Melville v. Spark Energy, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-08706 (D. N.J.), Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider entered
an Amended Scheduling Order setting the In-Person Status
Conference for Sept. 15, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

Judge Schneider also held a conference in the case on June 20.

The Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017, that John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark
Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class action filed on December 17,
2015 in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey alleging, among other things, that (i) sales
representatives engaged as independent contractors for Spark
Energy Gas, LLC engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC breach its
contract with plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for the purported class,
injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of
revenues and/or profits and attorneys' fees.

Initial discovery is ongoing. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy
Gas, LLC intend to vigorously defend this matter and the
allegations asserted therein. Given the early stages of this
matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case
at this time.

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services
company founded in 1999 that provides residential and commercial
customers in competitive markets across the United States with an
alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity.


SPARK ENERGY: Veilleux Seeks to File Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Veilleux et al v. Electricity Maine LLC et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-00571 (D. Maine), Jennifer Chon, Katherine Veilleux on
July 7, 2017, filed a Motion to File an Amended Complaint.
Responses to the Plaintiffs' request are due by July 28.

The case is before Maine District Judge Nancy Torresen.

Spark Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
Electricity Maine. LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark Holdco, LLC,
Kevin Dean and Emile Clavet is a purported class action lawsuit
filed on November 18, 2016 in the United States District Court of
Maine, alleging that Electricity Maine, LLC, an entity acquired by
Spark Holdco, LLC in mid-2016, enrolled customers through
fraudulent and misleading advertising and promotions prior to the
acquisition. Plaintiffs allege the following claims against all
Defendants: violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act,
violation of RICO, negligence, negligent misrepresentation,
fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of
contract. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for themselves and
the purported class, rescission of contracts with Electricity
Maine, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorney's fees.

Discovery has not yet commenced in this matter. Spark HoldCo
intends to vigorously defend this matter and the allegations
asserted therein. Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot
predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time.
Under the terms of the acquisition, Spark HoldCo is indemnified
for losses and expenses in connection with this action subject to
certain limits.

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services
company founded in 1999 that provides residential and commercial
customers in competitive markets across the United States with an
alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity.


SPARK ENERGY: Appeals Court Vacated Denial of Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated
the district court's denial of class certification in the case,
Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC, Spark Energy said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC is a purported class action
lawsuit that was originally filed on May 21, 2014 in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. On June 23, 2014, the case was
removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. On September 15, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed an amended class action complaint seeking a declaratory
judgment that the disclosure statement contained in Respond Power,
LLC's variable rate contracts with Pennsylvania consumers limited
the variable rate that could be charged to no more than the
monthly rate charged by the consumers' local utility company. The
plaintiffs also allege that Respond Power, LLC (i) breached its
variable rate contract with Pennsylvania consumers, and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing therein, by charging rates
in excess of the monthly rate charged by the consumers' local
utility company; (ii) engaged in deceptive conduct in violation of
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law; and (iii) engaged in negligent misrepresentation and
fraudulent concealment in connection with purported promises of
savings. The amount of damages sought is not specified. By order
dated August 31, 2015, the district court denied class
certification. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial
of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit vacated the district court's denial of class
certification and remanded the matter to the district court for
further proceedings. We currently cannot predict the outcome or
consequences of this case at this time. The Company is indemnified
for Major litigation matters, subject to certain limitations by
original owners of the Major Energy Companies.

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services
company founded in 1999 that provides residential and commercial
customers in competitive markets across the United States with an
alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity.


SPARKLE'S HAMBURGER: Payne Moves for FLSA Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned CRYSTAL PAYNE, Individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. SPARKLE'S
HAMBURGER SPOT, LLC, AND SPARKLE C. STEELS, Case No. 4:17-cv-00341
(S.D. Tex.), seeks conditional certification of a collective
action consisting of:

     "All Restaurant Employees employed by Sparkle's Hamburger
     Spot and Sparkle C. Steels in the past three (3) years who
     were paid on an hourly rate with no overtime compensation."

In her original complaint, Crystal Payne filed the suit on behalf
of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals on February 3, 2017, against Defendants Sparkle's
Hamburger Spot, LLC and Sparkle C. Steels for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, namely for the Defendants' failure to
pay overtime.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM
          2537 S. Gessner Rd., Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223-8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
          E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Terrence B. Robinson, Esq.
          Michelle Mishoe Miller, Esq.
          TB ROBINSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1616 S. Voss Rd., Suite 870
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 568-1723
          Facsimile: (713) 965-4288
          E-mail: TRobinson@TBRobinsonlaw.com


TCS INCORPORATED: Faces "Corbett" Suit in District of Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TCS Incorporated.
The case is titled as Brandon H. Corbett, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TCS
Incorporated also known as: Thunderbird Collections, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02107-SPL (D. Ariz., June 30, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan.

TCS is an Indian multinational information technology company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Leslie Prather, Esq.
          5864 N 83rd St.
          Scottsdale, AZ 85250
          Telephone: (480) 296 1507
          E-mail: johnlprather@hushmail.com


TRAEGER PELLET: "Leverage" Settlement Deal Has Preliminary OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kandis A. Westmore granted the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of a settlement agreement between the parties
in the case captioned DAVID LEVERAGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-
00784-KAW (N.D. Cal.).

The plaintiffs brought a putative class and collective action
against Traeger Pellet Grills LLC and Xen 2, Inc., alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various
state labor laws.  Traeger manufactures and sells high-performance
grills throughout the country.  Xenium is a staffing agency who
was the plaintiffs' W-2 employer for tax purposes.  Through
Xenium, the plaintiffs worked for Traeger as "Direct Sales
Demonstrators," demonstrating Traeger's grills to the public.  All
Direct Sales Demonstrators were required to go through several
days of training, referred to by the defendants as an "audition,"
in Utah.  Some plaintiffs were not paid for any regular or
overtime for this training period.

On April 7, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a settlement agreement between the parties.  On April
14, 2017, the defendants filed a statement of non-opposition.  The
Court held a hearing on the motion on June 15, 2017.  At the
hearing, the parties agreed to make certain changes to the
settlement agreement.  On June 23, 2017, the parties filed a
supplemental brief, which attached a revised settlement agreement
and notices.

Under the terms of the settlement agreements, the defendants agree
to pay a "Maximum Settlement Amount" of $2,850,000.  Of the
Maximum Settlement Amount, the plaintiff's counsel intends to seek
an award of 25%, or $712,500.00, as well as expenses not to exceed
$60,000.  The Maximum Settlement Amount also includes $65,000 in
incentive payments to the named plaintiffs, and an estimated
$35,000 for administration costs.  Finally, the Maximum Settlement
Amount includes $66,666.67 in penalties under California's Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA); $50,000 shall be paid to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), and
$16,666.67 shall be distributed to California members based on the
number of weeks each member worked in California between February
16, 2015 and the date of preliminary approval.  This leaves a "Net
Settlement Amount" of $1,910,833.33 for distribution to an
estimated 909 class members.

Judge Westmore found that preliminary approval is warranted,
subject to additional changes to the notices being made.  The
judge appointed, for settlement purposes only, David Leverage,
Michael Lentini, Peter Dana, Chris Benhardus, and Tracy Powell as
class representatives; Haines Law Group, APC and Kilgore &
Kilgore, PLLC as class counsel; and Simpluris, Inc. as Settlement
Administrator.  Judge Westmore also approved the notice provided
by the parties.

A full-text copy of Judge Westmore's June 28, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/QXNt0r from Leagle.com.

David Leverage, Michael Lentini, Peter Dana, Plaintiffs,
represented by John Henry Crouch, IV, Kilgore Kilgore PLLC,
Fletcher W.H. Schmidt -- fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law
Group, APC, Paul Haines -- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines
Law Group, APC, Sean M. Blakely -- sblakley@haineslawgroup.com --
Haines Law Group, APC, Tuvia Korobkin --
tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC & Christine
A. Hopkins, Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC.

Chris Bernhardus, Plaintiff, represented by Christine A. Hopkins,
Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC & Paul Haines, Haines Law Group, APC.

Traeger Pellet Grills, LLC, Xen 2, Inc., Defendants, represented
by Timothy Joseph Long, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & David
Peter Fuad, Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Povolotsky" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems,
Inc. The case is captioned as Yury Povolotsky, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Transworld Systems, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03937
(E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2017).

Transworld Systems provides accounts receivable, debt recovery,
and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies,
and dental companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRINITY HEATING: Boger Sues over Automated or Pre-recorded Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAN BOGER on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. TRINITY HEATING & AIR, INC. D/B/A TRINITY SOLAR and
MEDIA MIX 365, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01729-TDC (D.
Md., June 23, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from making
automated or pre-recorded calls and award to Plaintiff and the
Class of damages, as allowed by law.

The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, federal
statute enacted in 1991 in response to allege widespread public
outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance
telemarketing practices. In violation of the TCPA, the made
telemarketing calls to a cellular telephone number of Mr. Boger
for the purposes of advertising Trinity goods and services using
an automated dialing system, which is prohibited by the TCPA.
Media Mix 365, LLC made these calls because of an agreement with
Trinity Solar, who hired Media Mix 365, LLC to generate business
through telemarketing, and maintained interim control over their
actions.

Trinity Air is a residential and commercial HVAC service
provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen H. Ring, Esq.
          STEPHEN H. RING, PC
          9901 Belward Campus Drive, Suite 175
          Rockville, Maryland 20850
          Telephone: (301) 563 9249
          E-mail: shr@ringlaw.us

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Broderick & Paronich, P.C.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 680 0049
          Facsimile: ted@broderick-law.com


TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Ct. Strikes Personal Injury Claims in "Chapman"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
granted Defendants' motion to strike personal injury claims in the
captioned case KENNETH CHAPMAN et. al., Plaintiffs, v. TRISTAR
PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-CV-1114 (N.D. Ohio).

Plaintiffs Kenneth Chapman, Jessica Vennel, and Jason Jackson
bought pressure cookers from Defendant Tristar.  Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendant's Cookers have a design defect that "allows
users to open the pressure cooker while [the pressure cooker]
still contains a significant and dangerous amount of pressure."

Plaintiffs originally made personal injury claims, saying that
they suffered injuries when Plaintiffs opened their Cookers and
contents erupted onto them and their property.  However, when the
Plaintiffs moved for class certification, Plaintiffs sought only
economic damages.

On April 24, 2017, this Court granted class certification on this
economic damages theory.

When the parties filed their final pre-trial order, Named
Plaintiffs Chapman, Vennel, and Jackson reasserted their personal
injury claims.  Tristar moves to strike these personal injury
claims, arguing that the Named Plaintiffs cannot adequately
represent the Class while simultaneously pursuing their own
personal injury claims.

The Court agrees with Defendant Tristar.  Accordingly, the
Court grants the Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff Chapman,
Vennel, and Jackson's personal injury claims from this lawsuit.

Named Plaintiffs Chapman, Vennel, and Jackson seek a benefit the
Court made unavailable to other class members to be part of the
instant lawsuit and to maintain their personal injury claims.
This is improper, the Court held.  Named Plaintiffs cannot use
this lawsuit to pursue personal injury and economic damages when
their fellow Class members may only seek economic damages, the
Court pointed out.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 3, 2017, Opinion &
Order, is available at https://is.gd/oJzQ6M from Leagle.com.

Kenneth Chapman, Plaintiff, represented by Adam A. Edwards --
adam@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Law Office of Greg Coleman.

Kenneth Chapman, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Arthur M. Stock, Esq.
     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE
     Email: astock@bm.net
            scarson@bm.net

        -- and --

     Drew T. Legando, Esq.
     Jack Landskroner, Esq.
     LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN
     1360 W 9th St #200
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Tel: 866-823-3332
          216-487-7535

        -- and --

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Tyler J. Story, Esq.
     Wexler Wallace
     Email: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
            tjs@wexlerwallace.com

        -- and --

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Lisa A. White, Esq.
     Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
     Law Office of Greg Coleman
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone: (865) 247-0080

Jessica Vennel, Plaintiff, represented by Adam A. Edwards, Law
Office of Greg Coleman, Arthur M. Stock, Berger & Montague, Edward
A. Wallace, Wexler Wallace, pro hac vice, Gregory F. Coleman, Law
Office of Greg Coleman, pro hac vice, Jack Landskroner,
Landskroner Grieco Merriman, Lisa A. White, Law Office of Greg
Coleman, Mark E. Silvey, Law Office of Greg Coleman, pro hac
vice, Shanon J. Carson, Berger & Montague, Tyler J. Story, Wexler
Wallace & Drew T. Legando, Landskroner Grieco Merriman.

Jason Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Adam A. Edwards, Law
Office of Greg Coleman, Arthur M. Stock, Berger & Montague, Edward
A. Wallace, Wexler Wallace, pro hac vice, Gregory F. Coleman, Law
Office of Greg Coleman, pro hac vice, Jack Landskroner,
Landskroner Grieco Merriman, Lisa A. White, Law Office of Greg
Coleman, Mark E. Silvey, Law Office of Greg Coleman, pro hac
vice, Shanon J. Carson, Berger & Montague, Tyler J. Story, Wexler
Wallace & Drew T. Legando, Landskroner Grieco Merriman.

Tristar Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian E. Roof,
Esq. -- broof@sutter-law.com -- Sutter O'Connell, Brian Douglas
Sullivan, Esq. -- bsullivan@reminger.com -- Reminger &
Reminger, Hugh J. Bode, Esq. -- hbode@reminger.com -- Reminger &
Reminger, John Q. Lewis, Esq. -- john.lewis@tuckerellis.com --
Tucker Ellis, Jonathan F. Feczko, Esq. --
jonathan.feczko@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis, Madeline Dennis,
Esq. -- madeline.dennis@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis, Martin T.
Galvin, Esq. -- mgalvin@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger
& Nathan F. Studeny, Esq. -- nstudeny@sutter-law.com Sutter
O'Connell.


TRUSTMARK CORPORATION: No New Activity in Suit v. TNB
-----------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, there has been no new activity related to the
Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the lawsuit against TNB.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, TNB, has been named as a
defendant in three lawsuits related to the collapse of the
Stanford Financial Group.  The first is a purported class action
complaint that was filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court
of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott,
Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein
and Juan C. Olano (collectively, Class Plaintiffs), on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four
other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as
defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent
transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and
other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled
by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the Stanford Financial Group)
and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by
one or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds
that defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial
Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme.  Plaintiffs
have demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did not quantify damages.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  In May 2010,
all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the
lawsuit.

In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of
an Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC) to represent the
interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances,
to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors.  In
December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this
action.  In September 2012, the district court referred the case
to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain
pretrial issues.  In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's
motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint
against one of the other defendant financial institutions.

In February 2013, the OSIC filed a second Intervenor Complaint
that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant
financial institutions.  The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged
fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the
defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the
profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford
Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants
allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages
attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants
with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and
abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii)
punitive damages.  The OSIC did not quantify damages.

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims.  In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification and setting a deadline for the parties to complete
briefing on class certification issues.  In April 2015, the court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to
dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the OSIC's claims.  The
court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs' fraudulent transfer
claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's claims.  The court
denied the motions by TNB and the other financial institution
defendants to dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer
claims.

On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i)
aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii)
aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas
Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in
breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and
participating in conversion and (v) conspiracy.  On July 14, 2015,
the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the SAC
and to reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's
constructive fraudulent transfer claims against TNB and the other
financial institutions that are defendants in the action.  On July
27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and the other
financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and also
denied the motion by TNB and the other financial institution
defendants to reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the
OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims.  On August 24,
2016, TNB filed its answer to the SAC.  There has been no new
activity related to the SAC.


TWO PETERS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Two Peters Deli of
Smithtown Inc. The case is captioned as Octavio Gonzalez,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Two Peters Deli of Smithtown Inc., doing business
as: Townhouse Restaurant; Peter Apessos; and Justin Cruz, Case No.
1:17-cv-04976 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2017).

Two Peters Deli of Smithtown Inc. operates Restaurant serving
breakfast served all day.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ULTA SALON: "Wise" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH WISE, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. ULTA SALON,
COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00853-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal., June 23,
2017), seeks to recover actual, compensatory, special, and general
damages as well as restitutionary relief, and injunctive relief,
under the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, as a class action pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  According to the
complaint, the Plaintiff and the class of salon professionals are
entitled to recover, at a minimum, their unpaid hourly wages for
their rest and recovery periods and other nonproductive time, plus
liquidated damages in an additional amount equal to the total
amount minimum wages unlawfully withheld during the Class Period.

ULTA is described on its website as "the largest beauty retailer
in the United States and the premier beauty destination for
cosmetics, fragrance, skin, hair care products and salon
services." Besides selling beauty products, each ULTA store offers
a full-service salon featuring "hair, skin, and brow services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
          William J. Gorham, Esq.
          John P. Briscoe, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Telephone: (209) 477 3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473 4818
          E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
                  wgorham@mayallaw.com
                  nscardigli@mayallaw.com
                  jbriscoe@mayallaw.com


UNITED RECOVERY: Faces "Farrell" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Recovery
Systems, LP. The case is captioned as Kristine M. Farrell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. United Recovery Systems, LP, Now Known As Alltran
Financial, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03830 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 26, 2017).

United Recovery provides accounts receivable management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: "Heed" Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned David Heed, Individually and on
Behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Universal Health Services Inc., Alan B. Miller, and Steve Filton,
the Defendants, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, Teamsters Local
456 Annuity Fund, Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern
Canada, and City of Providence, the Defendants, Case No. 16-09499
(C.D. Cal., December 23, 2016), was transferred on June 21, 2017,
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division, Los Angeles), to the United States
District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-
cv-02817-LS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Lawrence F. Stengel.

Universal Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that in December 2016 a purported
shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against UHS, and certain
UHS officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws
relating to the disclosures made in public filings associated with
practices at our behavioral health facilities.

"We deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.  At
this time, we are uncertain as to potential liability or financial
exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter," the
Company said.

Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund is represented by:

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com

Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada is
represented by:

          Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          E-mail: danim@rgrdlaw.com

The Company's principal business is owning and operating, through
its subsidiaries, acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
and behavioral health care facilities.


US BANK: Snyder's Bid for Class Cert. Denied Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly denied the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification in the lawsuit styled Keith Snyder, et al.
v. U.S. Bank N.A., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11675 (N.D. Ill.).

The Motion is denied without prejudice until a more appropriate
time in the proceedings, Judge Kennelly opines, citing Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 2017 WL 2641124 (7th Cir. June 20,
2017).

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zVgGAI2r


US COACHWAYS: "Figueroa" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
SONNY ALLOWAY and JUANITA FIGUEROA, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. US COACHWAYS,
INC., MARK TELMANY and EDWARD TELMANY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-03720-RJD-RER (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2017), seeks declaratory
and injunctive relief, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and all other appropriate
legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and the New York State Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully, regularly,
repeatedly, and knowingly failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Class
Members for all hours worked and for all of the overtime hours
worked at the required overtime rates for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per workweek.[BN]

US Coachways is engaged in transportation business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Harrison, Esq.
          HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (718) 799 9111
          E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Singh Sues over Debt Buying Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
BOPINDERJIT SINGH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a
New Jersey limited liability company; and DOES 1 through I 0,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV312021 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 20, 2017), seeks to statutory damages against Defendants
arising from their routine practice of sending initial written
communications.

The case is a consumer class action brought pursuant to the
California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, which prohibits debt
buyers from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices.

Velocity is a "debt collector company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
          Raeon R. Roulston, Esq.
          Matthew C. Salmonsen, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
          12 South First Street, Suite 1014
          San Jose, CA 95113-241
          Telephone: (408) 294 6100
          Facsimile: (408) 294 6190
          E-mail: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com





                         *********


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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *