CAR_Public/170717.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, July 17, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 139



                            Headlines

ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Oct. 4 Final Hearing on "Anger" Case Settlement
ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Says $13M Deal Subject to Documentation
AEROVIAS DE MEXICO: Faces "Kindt" Suit Over Recorded Phone Calls
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Dismissed, No Appeal Filed
ALTISOURCE ASSET: Denver Retirement Plan Appeals Case Dismissal

ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Balks at Plaintiffs' Bid to Produce Docs
AMERICAN RENAL: Motion to Dismiss "Esposito" Amended Suit Pending
AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: $3.75 Million Settlement Pending
ANZ SECURITIES: Skadden Arps Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Amended Complaint Due Aug. 7 in "Min" Suit

AUTO-OWNERS MUTUAL: Lammert Seeks to Certify Liability Class
B COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
BAY WATCH: Accused by Johnson of Violating Wage and Hour Laws
BBVA COMPASS: Still Faces Plains All American Securities Suit
BBVA COMPASS: Still Faces St. Lucie County Securities Litigation

BBVA COMPASS: "Hossfeld" Litigation Underway
BLACKROCK INC: Bid to Dismiss Investor Suit Granted in Part
BLACKROCK INC: Defending Against Former Employee Class Suit
BLITT AND GAINES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP, MI: Savoie Confident on Sewage Case Outcome

CENTURYLINK: Billing Fraud Class Action Pile-On Opportunistic
CENTURYLINK: Consumers Protest Amid Billing Class Action
CHICAGO, IL: Water Dept. Faces Racial Discrimination Suit
CU BANCORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
CV SCIENCES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway

CYAN INC: SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to State Court Jurisdiction
DR. PEPPER: Faruqi Asks to be Appointed Interim Lead Counsel
DUNKIN DONUTS: Faces Class Action Over "Steak" Sandwich
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Class Certification Hearing Reset to Sept. 11
DYNCORP AEROSPACE: Balcazar Appeals Ruling in "Quinteros" Suit

ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: 3rd Amended Suit filed in "Machado" Case
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: "McGee" Suit Remains in Early Stages
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Chawdry and Myers Suit Remains Pending
EQUIDATA INC: "Hensley" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
EXAMWORKS GROUP: Hearing on $86.5M Settlement Set for Sept. 12

EXAR CORPORATION: Vladimir Trust Suit Dismissed
FLUOR CORP: BakerHostetler Comments on Dismissal of Class Suit
GC SERVICES: Court Terminates Class Cert. Bid in "Kausar" Suit
GREE ELECTRIC: Appeals Ruling in Homesite Suit to Ninth Circuit
HOME CAPITAL: Provides Update on Class Action Settlements

HONGLI CLEAN: Lifshitz & Miller Expands Class Period
HYPERION MEDICAL: Bid for Class Cert. Denied Without Prejudice
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: July 28 Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Named Lead Counsel
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Still Faces Customer Suit in Connecticut

JACOBS ENGINEERING: Accused by Kritch of Violating Labor Code
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hit with Large Talcum Powder Case Verdicts
JOSEPH CORY: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Lupian" Suit to 3rd Cir.
KINECTA ALTERNATIVE: Sued Over Labor Standards Act Violations
LG CHEM: Settlement Available for Eligible Claimants

LM FUNDING: Faces Class Action Over High Interest Rates
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Records $23,500 of Settlement Obligation
MASSACHUSETTS: Governor Sued Over Welfare Programs
MASSAGE ENVY: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Shortened Massages
MATTEL INC: Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set for Aug. 28

MCDONALD'S USA: Sued Over Illegal Restriction of Hiring
MODESTO JUNIOR: Sued Over Racial Discrimination
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Small Plan Participant Seeks Big Class Action
NAVY FEDERAL: Hit with Class Suit for Overcharging Overdraft Fees
NEAL TRUCKING: Court Approved $195,000 "Poisson" Case Settlement

NEW YORK: Class Action Against Port Authority Revived
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Sued by Santello for Not Paying Overtime
NY LIFE SECURITIES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Bouyea" Suit Alleges
ONTARIO HOCKEY: McCarthy Tetrault Attorneys Discuss Ruling
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: HELCO's Motion to Dismiss Underway

OVASCIENCE INC: Discovery Ongoing in Suffolk County Case
OVASCIENCE INC: Massachusetts Class Suit Underway
PACIFIC PERSONNEL: Accused by "Smith" Suit of Not Paying Overtime
PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridans Dismiss New York Suit
PANDORA MEDIA: Ponderosa Twins Suit Remains Stayed

PASADENA, CA: Suit Demands Refund For Parking Fees, Fines
PAYLESS: Car Rental Customers File Class Action
POINTBREAK MEDIA: "Molina" Suit Sues over Unauthorized Robo-calls
POST HOLDINGS: No Ruling Yet on Motion for Immediate Appeal
PREMIER COURIER: "Wright" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class

RAZZLE DAZZLE: Conditional Class Cert. Bid Granted in "Romero"
RELAY DELIVERY: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under FLSA
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Settlement in Warren Police Suit Pending
ROCKET FUEL: Oct. 11 Final Hearing on $3.15 Million Settlement
SAN JOSE, CA: Asks Court to Decertify Firefighter Employees Class

SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Securities Class Action Pending in Calif.
SEECO INC: Cambiano Appeals Order in "Smith" Suit to 8th Circuit
SERVICE KING: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
SIENTRA INC: $10,900,000 Settlement Awaits Final Approval
SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Securities Action in New York Pending

SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Securities Action in California Pending
SLATER & GORDON: Recapitalization Hinges on Settlement Approval
SLATER & GORDON: Judge Has Courtroom in Stitches Over Class Action
SPOKANE, WA: Faces Class Action for Overcharging Customers
SQUARETRADE: Moves to Compel Arbitration in Protection Plans Suit

SSM HOME: Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Can Proceed
STAPLES ENERGY: Faces "Price" Class Suit in California Super. Ct.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON: Discriminates Against Women, "Houck" Suit Says
SUGAR FOODS: Removes "Lara" Suit From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
SURFSTITCH GROUP: Provides Updates on Gadens Class Action

TELE PAY USA: Hit With Employee Class Action Over Unfair Wages
TOM'S MARINE: Hit With Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TOYOTA MOTOR: Hope Appeals Decision in "Warner" Suit to 9th Cir.
TRANSPORT EXPRESS: Faces "Cabuyales" Class Suit in California
U.S. RENAL: "Whitaker" Suit Seeks to Certify Class

UNITED STATES: Judge OK's Former SMU Inmate's Class Action
UNITED PARCEL: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Plaintiff Drops Weight Loss Supplement Suit
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: Baker Hostetler Discusses Court Ruling
WELLS FARGO: Meiners Appeals D. Minn. Judgment to Eighth Circuit

WESTLAND, MI: Judge Dismisses Water/Sewer Fees Class Action
WEYERHAEUSER: Container Board Case Edges Closer to Trial
WV BUSINESS: Attorney's General Office May Take Legal Action
YADKIN VALLEY: Settles Former Employees' WARN Act Class Action

* Long-Term Care Providers Brace for Data Breach Class Actions
* South Korea Seeks to Expand Current Class Action System



                            *********


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Oct. 4 Final Hearing on "Anger" Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Victoria A. Roberts on June 13, 2017, entered an
order preliminarily approving a Class Action Settlement in the
case, Anger v. Accretive Health, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-12864
(E.D. Mich.).  A Final Approval Hearing is set for Oct. 4, 2017 at
2:30 p.m. before Judge Roberts.  The Status Conference on June 14
and the Settlement Conference on Sept. 12 are cancelled.

R1 RCM 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 parties in a class action lawsuit have reached a
settlement in principle and are preparing a motion for pre-
approval and class settlement.

The Company said, "On July 22, 2014, we were named as a defendant
in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Anger v. Accretive
Health, Inc.). The primary allegations are that we attempted to
collect debts without providing the notice required by the FDCPA
and Michigan Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and failed to
abide by the terms of an agreed payment plan in violation of those
same statutes. On August 27, 2015, the Court granted in part and
denied in part our motion to dismiss. An amended complaint was
filed on November 30, 2015. Discovery is underway, but on July 15,
2016, the court postponed all deadlines in the case as the parties
attempt to finalize a confidential agreement in principle to
settle the case. On February 23, 2017, the parties reached a
settlement in principle and are preparing a motion for pre-
approval and class settlement. We believe that we have meritorious
defenses and is vigorously defending ourselves against these
claims, if the settlement in principle is not finalized."

R1 RCM Inc. (the "Company") is a provider of revenue cycle
management ("RCM") services and physician advisory services
("PAS") to healthcare providers.


ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Says $13M Deal Subject to Documentation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adverum Biotechnologies, 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 settlement of a class action
lawsuit is subject to definitive documentation.

The Company said, "In July 2015, three securities class action
lawsuits were filed against us and certain of our officers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, each on behalf of a purported class of persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded
securities between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015. The lawsuits
assert claims under the Exchange Act and Securities Act and allege
that the defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and omitted allegedly material information related to,
among other things, the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA-101 and
the prospects of AVA-101. The complaints seek unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs."

"In December 2015, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against us, our board of directors, underwriters of our January
13, 2015, follow-on public stock offering, and two of our
institutional stockholders, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo. The complaint alleges
that, in connection with our follow-on stock offering, the
defendants violated the Securities Act in essentially the same
manner alleged by the consolidated federal action: by allegedly
making materially false and misleading statements and by allegedly
omitting material information related to the Phase 2a clinical
trial for AVA-101 and the prospects of AVA-101. The complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory and rescissory damages, attorneys'
fees and other costs. The plaintiff has dismissed the two
institutional stockholder defendants.

"On March 16, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to settle the
asserted actions. The proposed aggregate amount of the settlement
is $13 million, of which $1 million would be contributed by the
Company to cover its indemnification obligations to the
underwriters, and the remainder would be contributed by the
Company's insurers. The settlement is subject to definitive
documentation, shareholder notice and court approval.

The Company and the defendants have denied and continue to deny
each and all of the claims alleged in the actions, and the
settlement does not assign or reflect any admission of fault,
wrongdoing or liability as to any defendant. If final court
approval is not obtained with respect to the settlement or the
settlement otherwise does not become effective and litigation
resumes, adverse outcomes in the actions could result in
substantial damages.

The Company is headquartered in Menlo Park, California. The
Company is a gene therapy company advancing novel medicines that
can offer life-changing benefits to patients living with serious
rare and ocular diseases. Since the Company's inception, it has
devoted its efforts principally to performing research and
development activities, including conducting preclinical studies
and, early clinical trials, filing patent applications, obtaining
regulatory agreements, hiring personnel, and raising capital to
support these activities.


AEROVIAS DE MEXICO: Faces "Kindt" Suit Over Recorded Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
MALINA KINDT and GEORGE PAPPAS, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. AEROVIAS DE MEXICO,
S.A. DE C.V.; GRUPO AEROMEXICO S.A.B. DE C.V.; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 17CV312100 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara
Cty., June 22, 2017), arises out of the Defendants' alleged policy
and practice of recording and monitoring, without the consent of
all parties, telephone calls made or routed to their toll-free
customer service telephone numbers, including 800-237-6639 and
844-282-7095.

Aerovias de Mexico is a foreign corporation with its principal
executive offices in Houston, Texas.  Grupo Aeromexico is a
foreign corporation with headquarters in Mexico City, Mexico.
Aeromexico is a foreign airline company with more than 80
destinations all around the world, including 45 destinations in
Mexico, 16 in the United States, l6 in Latin America, four in
Europe, three in Canada, and two in Asia.  The Plaintiffs are
ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Rachael G. Jung, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
                  rjung@kellergrover.com

               - and -

          Scot Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN,
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 447-0100
          Facsimile: (916) 933-5533
          E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Dismissed, No Appeal Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, 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 plaintiff has not appealed the
dismissal of of a securities class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In September 2015, a purported securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us, including our Chief Executive
Officer, our Chief Financial Officer, and members of our Board of
Directors, in the Business Litigation Section of the Suffolk
County Superior Court of Massachusetts. The complaint is brought
on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased our common
stock pursuant or traceable to our initial public offering, and
purports to allege claims arising under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaint
generally alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning the Phase 2b clinical study
of vadadustat. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
unspecified compensatory damages, rescission of certain stock
purchases, attorneys' fees, and costs."

"In October 2015, we removed the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the
plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Business
Litigation Section of the Suffolk County Superior Court of
Massachusetts. The plaintiff's motion to remand was granted in
April 2016.

"The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Suffolk County
Superior Court on August 15, 2016, and we served our memorandum in
support of our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October
14, 2016. The motion to dismiss hearing was held on January 31,
2017. The Court granted our motion to dismiss and dismissed the
case with prejudice on February 21, 2017. The plaintiff did not
appeal."

The Company is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing
and delivering novel therapeutics for patients based on hypoxia-
inducible factor, or HIF, biology, and building its pipeline while
leveraging its development and commercial expertise in renal
disease.  HIF is the primary regulator of the production of red
blood cells, or RBCs, in the body, as well as other important
metabolic functions.  Pharmacologic modulation of the HIF pathway
may have broad therapeutic applications.


ALTISOURCE ASSET: Denver Retirement Plan Appeals Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource
Asset Management Corporation et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00004 (D.
Virgin Islands), Judge Harvey Bartle, III, on July 5, 2017,
denied, with prejudice, a motion to amend complaint.  On July 7,
the Denver Employee Retirement Plan filed a notice of appeal as to
the Order dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim.

Altisource Asset Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the case, City of
Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp.,
et al., Plaintiff filed a first amended consolidated complaint.

On January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin
Islands by a purported shareholder of AAMC under the caption City
of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management
Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004. The action names as defendants AAMC,
our former Chairman, William C. Erbey, and certain officers of
AAMC and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by failing to disclose material information to AAMC
shareholders concerning alleged conflicts of interest held by Mr.
Erbey with respect to AAMC's relationship and transactions with
RESI, Altisource, Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., Southwest
Business Corporation, NewSource Reinsurance Company and Ocwen
Financial Corporation, including allegations that the defendants
failed to disclose (i) the nature of relationships between Mr.
Erbey, AAMC and those entities; and (ii) that the transactions
were the result of an allegedly unfair process from which Mr.
Erbey failed to recuse himself. The action seeks, among other
things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an
unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other fees and
expenses. AAMC and Mr. Erbey are the only defendants who have been
served with the complaint.

On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of
Denver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff. On May 15,
2015, the court entered a scheduling order requiring plaintiff to
file an amended complaint on or before June 19, 2015, and setting
a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on June 19, 2015.

On July 20, 2015, AAMC and Mr. Erbey filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed
on September 3, 2015, and the Company is awaiting a decision from
the court on the motion.

On December 16, 2016, the case was reassigned to a new Judge, U.S.
District Court Judge Harvey Bartle, III, in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

On April 6, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. On April 21, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a notice with the court that it intended to file a
first amended consolidated complaint in the matter no later than
May 1, 2017.

On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint and, at the same time, filed a first amended
consolidated complaint.

"We believe the amended complaint is without merit. At this time,
we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter,
nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any," the
Company said.


ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Balks at Plaintiffs' Bid to Produce Docs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the case, Martin v. Altisource Residential
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00024 (D. Virgin Islands), is
underway.  Altisource Residential Corporation, Robin N Lowe,
Kenneth D. Najour, Ashish Pandey, Rachel M. Ridley have objected
to Lead Plaintiff's First Demand for Production of Documents.

Altisource Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a putative shareholder
class action complaint was filed on March 27, 2015, in the United
States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a purported
shareholder of the Company under the caption Martin v. Altisource
Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024. The action names as
defendants the Company, our former Chairman, William C. Erbey, and
certain officers and a former officer of the Company and alleges
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by, among
other things, making materially false statements and/or failing to
disclose material information to the Company's shareholders
regarding the Company's relationship and transactions with AAMC,
Ocwen Financial Corporation ("Ocwen") and Home Loan Servicing
Solutions, Ltd. These alleged misstatements and omissions include
allegations that the defendants failed to adequately disclose the
Company's reliance on Ocwen and the risks relating to its
relationship with Ocwen, including that Ocwen was not properly
servicing and selling loans, that Ocwen was under investigation by
regulators for violating state and federal laws regarding
servicing of loans and Ocwen's lack of proper internal controls.
The complaint also contains allegations that certain of the
Company's disclosure documents were false and misleading because
they failed to disclose fully the entire details of a certain
asset management agreement between the Company and AAMC that
allegedly benefited AAMC to the detriment of the Company's
shareholders. The action seeks, among other things, an award of
monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount
and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses.

In May 2015, two of the Company's purported shareholders filed
competing motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff
and for selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently,
opposition and reply briefs were filed by the purported
shareholders with respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015,
the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be
lead plaintiff and denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff.

On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.

On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims
in the action. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on May 20,
2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016.

On November 14, 2016, the Martin case was reassigned to Judge Anne
E. Thompson of the Unites States District Court of New Jersey. In
a hearing on December 19, 2016, the parties made oral arguments on
the motion to dismiss, and on March 16, 2017 the Court issued an
order that the motion to dismiss had been denied.

On April 17, 2017, the defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's decision to deny the motion to
dismiss. Plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion for
reconsideration was anticipated to be due on May 8, 2017. In
addition, the defendants filed their answer and affirmative
defenses by April 21, 2017.


AMERICAN RENAL: Motion to Dismiss "Esposito" Amended Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Renal Associates Holdings, 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 case, Esposito, et
al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc., et al., remains
pending.

On May 18, 2017, American Renal Associates Holdings filed a
Memorandum in Support of Motion To Dismiss The Amended Class
Action Complaint.

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

On October 26, 2016, the complaint filed in the Southern District
of New York was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff without
prejudice.  On November 30, 2016, Lead Plaintiff was appointed for
the putative shareholder class action complaint pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
captioned Esposito, et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings,
Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-11797 (the "Esposito Action").

On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff in the Esposito Action filed
an amended complaint against the Company, certain former and
current officers and directors of the Company, Centerbridge
Capital Partners L.P., and certain of the underwriters in our
initial public offering. The amended complaint asserts federal
securities laws claims under Securities Act sections 11 and 15, as
well as Exchange Act sections 10(b), 20(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.

American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. ("ARAH" or "the Company")
owns 100% of the membership units of its subsidiary American Renal
Holdings Intermediate Company, LLC, which itself has no assets
other than 100% of the shares of capital stock of American Renal
Holdings Inc. All of its operating activities are conducted
through American Renal Holdings Inc. and its operating
subsidiaries ("ARH").

The Company is a national provider of kidney dialysis services for
patients suffering from chronic kidney failure, also known as end
stage renal disease, or ESRD. As of March 31, 2017, the Company
owned and operated 217 dialysis clinics treating 14,735 patients
in 25 states and the District of Columbia. The Company's operating
model is based on shared ownership of its facilities with
physicians, known as nephrologists, who specialize in treating
kidney-related diseases in the local market served by the clinic.
Each clinic is maintained as a separate joint venture, or JV, in
which the Company has a controlling interest and its local
nephrologist partners have noncontrolling interests.


AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: $3.75 Million Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that Lead plaintiff and defendants have
reached an agreement in principal to fully and finally settle all
claims asserted in the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint.

On April 14, 2017, Block & Leviton LLP filed for preliminary
approval of a $3.75 million settlement in this case. That motion
is currently pending before the Court.

Since October 1, 2015, three purported securities class action
lawsuits have been commenced in the United States District Court
for New Jersey, naming as defendants the Company, its Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, and in one of the actions, its Chief
Medical Officer. The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the Company related to the
regulatory approval path for migalastat.  The plaintiffs seek,
among other things, damages for purchasers of the Company's Common
Stock during different periods, all of which fall between March
19, 2015 and October 1, 2015. It is possible that additional suits
will be filed, or allegations received from stockholders, with
respect to similar matters and also naming the Company and/or its
officers and directors as defendants.

On May 26, 2016, the Court consolidated these lawsuits into a
single action and appointed a lead plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff
filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 11,
2016. On August 25, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
in response to the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.
This motion to dismiss was fully briefed on October 28, 2016.

Lead plaintiff and defendants have reached an agreement in
principal to fully and finally settle all claims asserted in the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.   The settlement is
immaterial to the Company's consolidated financial statements and
is subject to court approval. The settlement amount is expected to
be fully covered under insurance.

Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class:

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     155 Federal Street, Suite 400
     Boston, MA 02110

Counsel for Defendants:

     Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
     SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
     4 Times Square
     New York, New York 10036

Additional information on the case is available at:

            http://www.amicussecuritieslitigation.com/

Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company") is a global patient-
focused biotechnology company engaged in the discovery,
development, and commercialization of a diverse set of novel
treatments for patients living with devastating rare and orphan
diseases. The lead product, migalastat HCl is a small molecule
that can be used as a monotherapy and in combination with enzyme
replacement of therapy ("ERT") for Fabry disease.


ANZ SECURITIES: Skadden Arps Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Saltzstein, Esq. -- susan.saltzstein@skadden.com -- and
Robert Fumerton, Esq. -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com -- of Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, in an article for Law360, wrote
that in one of the first cases argued before new Justice Neil
Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court in California Public Employees'
Retirement System v. ANZ Securities Inc., No. 16-373, slip op. at
16-17 (June 26, 2017), decided on Jan. 26 that the filing of a
putative class action does not toll Section 13's statute of repose
for an individual plaintiff's Section 11 claims.
Background

The road to CalPERS began with the Supreme Court's 1974 decision
in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, which established a
class action tolling rule pursuant to which certain limitations
periods are tolled for unnamed members of a putative class until
class certification is decided.  Since that decision, the federal
circuit courts have been divided on whether the American Pipe
tolling rule properly can be applied to toll statutes of repose or
should instead be confined to statutes of limitations.  Even those
courts reaching the same conclusion on the issue have employed
disparate reasoning, and recent decisions have only deepened the
divide.

Recognizing this circuit split, the Supreme Court first granted
certiorari on the question following the Second Circuit's 2013
decision in Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit
v. IndyMac MBS Inc.  The writ of certiorari in that case was
dismissed as improvidently granted, however, when the court
learned of a pending settlement agreement before the district
court.  Thus, just a few years later, CalPERS provided the court
with another opportunity to speak definitively on the reach of the
American Pipe tolling rule.

The dispute in CalPERS dates back to the collapse of Lehman
Brothers Holdings Inc. Before its bankruptcy, Lehman raised over
$31 billion through debt offerings, and CalPERS allegedly bought
millions of dollars of those securities between July 2007 and
January 2008.  In June 2008, another retirement fund that also
purportedly purchased those securities filed a putative class
action in the Southern District of New York.  The complaint
alleged that the debt offerings' underwriters were liable for
false and misleading statements made in the registration
statements.  The parties to the putative class action agreed to a
settlement that same year, however, and CalPERS opted out to
pursue an individual action when the district court certified a
settlement class.

CalPERS commenced its individual action in February 2011, more
than three years after the debt offerings.  Section 13 of the
Securities Act provides that all claims under the act must be
brought within one year of the "discovery of the untrue statement
or the omission, or after such discovery should have been made by
the exercise of reasonable diligence."  Importantly, Section 13
also imposes a three-year time bar: "In no event shall any action
be brought to enforce a liability created under [Section 11] . . .
more than three years after the security" was offered to the
public. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 77m.  Because the Lehman debt offerings
were first offered to the public more than three years before
CalPERS commenced its action, the district court concluded that
the action was untimely under Section 13's three-year repose
period.

CalPERS appealed to the Second Circuit, and, on July 8, 2016, the
panel unanimously affirmed the district court's order.  The Second
Circuit applied its reasoning from IndyMac to conclude that the
prior filing of a securities class action does not toll Section
13's three-year limitations period, which it deemed a statute of
repose.  In affirming the district court, the Second Circuit
highlighted the circuit split concerning the reach of the American
Pipe tolling rule.  Specifically, the court opined that the
question "may be ripe for resolution by the Supreme Court" but
"unless and until the Supreme Court informs us that our decision
was erroneous, IndyMac continues to be the law of the Circuit and
its reasoning controls the outcome of the case."  The Supreme
Court, as in IndyMac, accepted the Second Circuit's invitation.

The Parties' Arguments

In its briefing and at argument, CalPERS urged the court to adopt
one of several rationales to conclude that its complaint was
timely filed.  The first and, according to CalPERS, easiest
rationale (i.e., one not dependent upon tolling) was that the
class complaint "brought" all of the individual class members'
claims against the respondents.  CalPERS' individual action was
thus timely commenced upon the filing of the putative class action
complaint.  According to this argument, CalPERS' opt-out complaint
ought not be viewed as a new "action" but rather the assertion of
control over the individual plaintiff's claim first alleged by the
class representative.

The respondents chided CalPERS for asserting procedurally improper
arguments given that the court expressly declined to grant
certiorari on the question of whether a member of a timely filed
putative class action may file an individual suit on the same
causes of action before class certification is decided, even where
the relevant time limitations have expired. E.g., Resp. br. at 39.
Moreover, the respondents contended that CalPERS' rationale would
not apply under the facts of the case because CalPERS opted out
before class certification, negating its claim that the filing of
the class action complaint initiated its individual "action." Id.
at 45.

CalPERS then offered two alternative arguments: (1) if the court
determined that tolling principles were implicated, American Pipe
tolling -- even if a form of equitable tolling -- applied because
the timely filed class action complaint initiated its action, Pet.
br. at 41-42; and (2) in any event, Section 13's three-year period
is a statute of limitations rather than a statute of repose.  Id.
at 43-45.

The respondents, in contrast, argued that (1) the American Pipe
tolling rule is equitable in nature, and statutes of repose are
not subject to equitable tolling, Resp. br. at 27-30, and (2)
Section 13's text, structure and history show that its three-year
period is a "classic statute of repose" meant to establish the
outer limit of a defendant's liability under Section 13.  Id. at
21.  Specifically, the respondents emphasized Section 13's
legislative history, use of categorical language, and "two-tiered"
structure to assert that Congress intended Section 13's three-year
bar to reflect a finite limit on Section 11 claims, balancing the
interests of both plaintiffs and defendants. Id. at 18-26.

At oral argument in April, Justice Gorsuch was vocal in staking
out a "plain language" interpretation of the statute.  When
CalPERS pressed its first argument -- that the opt-out complaint
was not a new "action" for purposes of the statute of repose --
Justice Gorsuch parsed the distinction between the terms "action"
and "claim." Section 13 uses "action" and accordingly, Justice
Gorsuch suggested, even if CalPERS brings "the same claims ...
it's a different action."

CalPERS attempted to resist Justice Gorsuch's text-driven position
with policy arguments, but Justice Gorsuch reiterated his focus on
the statute's text: "I mean, I don't like the policy consequences,
but as a matter of plain language," he seemed unconvinced.  And
later, when CalPERS argued that the statute's "in no event"
language contained an ambiguity, Justice Gorsuch pointedly asked:
"Where is the ambiguity in 'in no event'?"

Justice Gorsuch's focus on "plain language" marks an early trend
in his Supreme Court jurisprudence.  Indeed, Justice Gorsuch's
first question as a Supreme Court justice, which came earlier on
the same day in a case captioned Perry v. Merit Systems Protection
Board, asked, "Where in the statute is that provided?" And when
the lawyer replied by reciting the court's precedent, Justice
Gorsuch asked him to "put[ ] aside" the decision and "look[ ] at
the plain language of the statute."

Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor focused primarily on the
practical ramifications of ANZ's argument.  She, Justice Elena
Kagan and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg all expressed concern about
the potential for Section 13's repose period to clog the courts
with duplicative litigation, unnecessary paperwork and less
sophisticated plaintiffs pursuing individual actions.  "This is a
rule that's kind of guaranteed to create make-work for district
courts," Justice Kagan said, "and for small investors to lose
their claims."

The Supreme Court's Decision

In an opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a 5-4 majority
of the court concluded that Section 13's three-year time limit is
a statute of repose not subject to American Pipe tolling.  Justice
Kennedy was joined by Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas,
Samuel Alito and Gorsuch in affirming the Second Circuit's
underlying decision.  Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissenting
opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.
The opinion, which marks a victory for defendants by holding that
the statute of repose is not subject to equitable tolling,
described Section 13 as a "complete defense to any suit after a
certain period." (Op. at 9.)

With respect to the petitioner's argument that tolling was not
implicated because the timely filing of the class action complaint
timely brought its individual "action," the court said it "defied
ordinary understanding that [CalPERS'] filing -- in a separate
forum, on a separate date, by a separate named party -- was the
same action[.]" (Op. at 15.) The court instead applied a
"straightforward analysis" and held that "[t]he 3-year time bar in
Section 13 of the Securities Act is a statute of repose." (Op. at
16.) The majority concluded that the "statute displaces the
traditional power of courts to modify statutory time limits in the
name of equity." (Id.)

Writing in dissent, Justice Ginsburg expressed concern that the
court's opinion "disserves the investing public that Section 11
was designed to protect." (Op. at 4) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
"[T]he risk is high," Justice Ginsburg cautioned, "that class
members failing to file a protective claim will be saddled with
inadequate representation or an inadequate judgment." (Id.)
Justice Ginsburg concluded her dissent with a warning: "The
decision impels courts and class counsel to take a more active
role in protecting class members' opt-out rights." (Id. at 5.)

Although he did not write an opinion in this case, Justice Gorsuch
also made his presence felt.  In substance, the majority opinion
corresponded closely with Justice Gorsuch's questioning at oral
argument back in April: his insistence on reading the "plain
language" of Section 13's "in no event" language, for example, can
be seen in Justice Kennedy's statement that the statute "admits of
no exception and on its face creates a fixed bar against future
liability." (Op. at 5.) Justice Gorsuch's skepticism about
CalPERS' "same action" argument was similarly echoed in the
majority opinion.

Going Forward: More Certainty for Defendants and Potential
Limitations on Class Certification

The decision represents a significant victory for securities class
action defendants.  Most directly, they now no longer face the
threat of liability from opt-outs more than three years following
an offering of securities.  Once a class action has been filed,
the decision effectively eliminates the ability of individual
class members to opt out after the three-year cutoff unless they
have first filed a protective claim on their own behalf within the
three-year period.  As Justice Kennedy noted, this kind of
"certainty and reliability . . . are a necessity in a marketplace
where stability and reliance are essential components of valuation
and expectation for financial actors." (Op. at 16.) Defendants
will now be able to calculate their exposure to opt-out actions
and other liability stemming from a securities class action with
much greater confidence and precision.

This decision also has the potential to spur courts to go even
further in limiting securities class actions.  While on its face,
the Supreme Court's holding does not prevent a class from being
certified outside of the three-year repose period, there is an
argument that this precedent could be applied to preclude putative
class members from joining a class after that period of time. In
other words, if putative class members -- as opposed to the named
plaintiffs themselves -- are not deemed to have been part of an
action until a class is certified, it is not clear why the three-
year repose period would not bar claims by these individuals as
well.  While some may argue that this would be a harsh result, it
bears emphasis that the advent of class actions and Rule 23 came
well after Congress enacted the three-year repose period in the
Securities Act.

Moreover, given that class members can no longer opt out of a
class that is certified after the three-year cutoff -- and, as the
dissent here stressed, the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart held that
opt-out rights are an essential element of due process in class
actions -- courts could refuse to certify any class after the
three-year cutoff on that basis as well.

The effect of this type of ruling could potentially be even more
devastating for securities plaintiffs, particularly where putative
class actions are not commenced until a couple of years into the
three-year repose period.  In those situations, plaintiffs would
have significant difficulties in getting through the pleading
stage and moving for class certification before the three-year
cut-off expired. [GN]


ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Amended Complaint Due Aug. 7 in "Min" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Min v. Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-00880 (S.D.N.Y.), the Court on June 26, 2017, entered a
Memo Endorsement regarding the letter filed by Aratana Investor
Group.  According to the Endorsement signed by Judge Paul A.
Engelmayer:

     -- the amended complaint will be due August 7, 2017.

     -- Defendants' response to the amended complaint will be
        due October 6, 2017.

     -- If Defendants file a motion to dismiss, Lead Plaintiff's
        memorandum in opposition will be due November 6, 2017, and

     -- Defendants' reply memorandum will be due November 20,
        2017.

Aratana Therapeutics, 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 intends to vigorously
defend all claims in the "Min" and "Dezi" class action lawsuits.

On February 6, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and two of its current officers, Yanbing
Min v. Aratana Therapeutics, Inc., et al. , Case No. 1:17-cv-
00880.

On February 27, 2017, a second purported class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and two of its current
officers, Dezi v. Aratana Therapeutics, Inc., et al. , Case No.
1:17-cv-01446.

Both lawsuits assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-
disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class
period of March 16, 2015 to February 3, 2017. The Company intends
to vigorously defend all claims asserted.

Aratana Therapeutics, Inc., including its subsidiaries was
incorporated on December 1, 2010 under the laws of the State of
Delaware. The Company is a pet therapeutics company focused on
licensing, developing and commercializing innovative therapeutics
for dogs and cats. The Company has one operating segment: pet
therapeutics.


AUTO-OWNERS MUTUAL: Lammert Seeks to Certify Liability Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GREGORY J. LAMMERT, JAMIE LAMMERT, LARRY
REASONS, and SUSAN REASONS, the Plaintiffs, v. AUTO-OWNERS
(MUTUAL) INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00819
(M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a liability
class of:

   "all persons and legal entities, insured under an Auto-Owners
   (Mutual) Insurance Company (Auto-Owners) Homeowners, Dwelling
   or property insurance policy form, and who received an "actual
   cash value" (ACV) payment from Auto-Owners for direct physical
   loss to a dwelling or other structure located in the State of
   Tennessee, and in which the cost of labor has been withheld in
   whole or in part (or as described by Auto-Owners as
   "depreciated") as reflected within an Xactimate estimate used
   by Auto-Owners to calculate the corresponding ACV payment. The
   proposed class excludes any person or entities whose
   applicable suit limitation clause for ACV claims within their
   respective Auto-Owners' policy had expired at the time of the
   filing of the Complaint in the instant action, but includes
   any person or entity so affected through the date of final
   disposition of this matter. The proposed class includes any
   policyholder who received no ACV payment from Auto-Owners
   solely because the withholding of labor depreciation caused
   the value of the claim to drop below the applicable
   deductible".

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court that they each be appointed
class representatives, and that their counsel be appointed as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=k7vB0bpM

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd A. Noteboom, Esq.
          Jeffrey G. Mason, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 335 1894
          E-mail: todd.noteboom@stinson.com
                  jeffrey.mason@stinson.com

               - and -

          Zane A. Gilmer, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          6400 South Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 1900
          Greenwood Village, CO 80111
          Telephone: (303) 376 8416
          E-mail: zane.gilmer@stinson.com

               - and -

          John S. Hicks, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL &
          BERKOWITZ, PC
          211 Commerce Street, Suite 800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 726 7337
          E-mail: jhicks@bakerdonelson.com


B COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against B Communications Ltd. and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-04937, is on behalf
of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired B Communications securities, seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased B Communications securities
between November 7, 2013 and June 19, 2017, both dates inclusive,
you have until August 28, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action,
contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

B Communications Ltd provides various communications services for
business and private customers in Israel. The company offers
fixed-line telephony, fixed-line broadband Internet infrastructure
access, Internet service provider, cellular telephony,
international telephony, international and domestic data transfer
and network, information and communication technology, pay
television, multi-channel television, television and radio
broadcasts, satellite broadcasts, and customer call center
services, as well as other communications infrastructures and
services.

B Communications is a subsidiary of Internet Gold-Golden Lines,
itself a subsidiary of Eurocom Communications Ltd. ("Eurocom"),
owned by Shaul Elovitch ("Elovitch").

At all relevant times, Bezeq The Israel Telecommunication
Corporation Limited ("Bezeq") has existed as a subsidiary of B
Communications.  On or around June 24, 2015, Bezeq completed a
merger with its subsidiary D.B.S., Satellite Services (1998) Ltd.
("DBS"), more commonly known by its trade name "YES", a satellite
television operator (the "Bezeq-YES Merger").  Prior to the
merger, Bezeq held a 49.8% stake in YES, while Eurocom held a
50.2% stake in the YES.  Pursuant to the merger, Bezeq paid
Eurocom NIS 680 million to acquire its holdings in YES.

Through his ownership of Eurocom, at all relevant times Elovitch
has exercised control over Eurocom, B Communications, and Bezeq,
and has served at all relevant times as the Chairman of the Board
of Directors at each of the three companies.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) Elovitch had engaged in
illegal conduct in connection with the Bezeq-YES Merger; (ii)
discovery of the foregoing conduct would subject B Communications
and/or Bezeq to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential
criminal sanctions; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, B
Communications' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On June 20, 2017, The Times of Israel reported that the Israel
Securities Authority ("ISA") had raided the offices of Bezeq and
detained Elovitch. The ISA advised Bezeq that it was investigating
"suspicions of violations of the securities law and the penal code
relating to transactions connected to" Elovitch.  The Israeli
publication Globes reported that the ISA is investigating the
Bezeq-Yes Merger, as well as payments the unit made to Eurocom
under pressure from Elovitch.

Following this news, B Communications' share price fell $1.00, or
4.65%, to close at $20.50 on June 20, 2017.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.

         Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com  [GN]


BAY WATCH: Accused by Johnson of Violating Wage and Hour Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BAY WATCH, INC. d/b/a CLUB ALEX'S ) and
GEORGE F. ALEXOPOULOS, Case No. 17-0799 (Mass. Super. Ct., Norfolk
Cty., June 22, 2017), alleges that the Defendants violate the
Commonwealth's wage and hour laws and caused the Plaintiff and
putative class members substantial harm.

The purported class action is brought by Ms. Johnson individually
and on behalf of similarly situated employees against her former
employer, Bay Watch and its president and treasurer George F.
Alexopoulos, for violation of state wage and hour laws.  The
Plaintiff and putative class members are exotic dancers for Club
Alex's, who are allegedly misclassified as independent
contractors.

Bay Watch, Inc., is a domestic corporation with a principal place
of business in Stoughton, Massachusetts.  George F. Alexopoulos is
President and Treasurer of Bay Watch.  The Defendants own or
operate Club Alex's, a nightclub providing adult entertainment
featuring exotic dancers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tallulah Q. Knopp, Esq.
          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: tqk@mass-legal.com
                  rm@mass-legal.com
                  nfo@mass-legal.com


BBVA COMPASS: Still Faces Plains All American Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that BBVA Securities Inc. continues
to defend against the case, In re Plains All American Pipeline,
L.P. Securities Litigation.

In January 2016, BBVA Securities Inc. was named as a defendant in
a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, In re Plains All American Pipeline,
L.P. Securities Litigation, wherein the plaintiffs challenge
statements made in registration materials and prospectuses filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
eight securities offerings of stock and notes issued by Plains GP
Holdings and Plains All American Pipeline and underwritten by BSI,
among others. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. The
Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.


BBVA COMPASS: Still Faces St. Lucie County Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that BBVA Securities Inc. continues
to defend against a class action lawsuit by St. Lucie County Fire
District Firefighters' Pension Trust.

In October 2016, BSI was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed
in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, and subsequently
removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters'
Pension Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al., wherein the
plaintiffs allege that Southwestern Energy Company, its officers
and directors, and the underwriting defendants (including BSI)
made inaccurate and misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus related to a securities offering. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. The Company believes
there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to
defend them vigorously.


BBVA COMPASS: "Hossfeld" Litigation Underway
--------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017, that BBVA Compass continues to defend
against a class action lawsuit by Robert Hossfeld.

In December 2016, BBVA Compass was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Robert Hossfeld,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. and MSR Group, LLC, alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the context
of customer satisfaction survey calls to the cell phones of
individuals who have not given, or who have withdrawn, consent to
receive calls on their cell phones. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary relief. The Company believes there are
substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them
vigorously.


BLACKROCK INC: Bid to Dismiss Investor Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------
BlackRock, 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 in part the
defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing
plaintiffs' amended class action complaint.

On June 16, 2016, iShares Trust, BlackRock, Inc. and certain of
its advisory affiliates, and the directors and certain officers of
the iShares funds were named as defendants in a purported class
action lawsuit filed in California state court.  The lawsuit was
filed by investors in certain iShares funds (the "Funds"), and
alleges the defendants violated the federal securities laws,
purportedly by failing to adequately disclose in prospectuses
issued by the Funds the risks to Fund shareholders in the event of
a "flash crash."  Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages.

The Plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in December 2016 and on
January 6, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing
that complaint.

On April 27, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motion in
part and denied it in part.  The defendants believe the claims in
this lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the
action.

BlackRock, Inc. is a publicly traded investment management firm
providing a broad range of investment and risk management services
to institutional and retail clients worldwide.


BLACKROCK INC: Defending Against Former Employee Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
BlackRock, Inc. is defending against a purported class action
lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California by a former employee, 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 April 5, 2017, BlackRock, Inc., BlackRock Institutional Trust
Company, N.A., the BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee and
various sub-committees, and a BlackRock employee were named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by a former
employee on behalf of all BlackRock employee 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan") participants and beneficiaries in the Plan from April 5,
2011, to the present.  The lawsuit generally alleges that the
defendants breached their duties towards Plan participants in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
by, among other things, offering investment options that were
overly expensive, underperformed peer funds, focused
disproportionately on active versus passive strategies, and were
unduly concentrated with investment options managed by BlackRock.

While the complaint does not contain any specific amount in
alleged damages, it claims that the purported underperformance and
hidden fees cost Plan participants more than $60 million.  The
defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend the action.

BlackRock, Inc. is a publicly traded investment management firm
providing a broad range of investment and risk management services
to institutional and retail clients worldwide.


BLITT AND GAINES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHARLES LIVERMORE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BLITT
AND GAINES, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00940 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
a proposed class, appointing himself as its representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP, MI: Savoie Confident on Sewage Case Outcome
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Runkle, writing for The Oakland Press, reports that as a
class-action lawsuit against Bloomfield Township alleging inflated
water and sewer charges works its way through Oakland County
Circuit Court, township Supervisor Leo Savoie is confident that
the municipality will be cleared.

Mr. Savoie says he's "100 percent" sure the lawsuit, which was
filed last year, will be dismissed.

"I'm very confident because we didn't do anything wrong," he said.

Both sides are wrapping up the discovery phase, in which they
obtain evidence from each other.

Royal Oak law firm Kickham Hanley represents the plaintiffs in
their fight with the township.

If the plaintiffs prevail, the township will owe a refund to about
20,000 water and sewer customers.

Kickham Hanley also has several cases pending against other area
cities and townships, including Waterford, which offered to settle
for $1.4 million in May.  The township does not admit to any
wrongdoing.

The average payout per water and sewer customer won't be known
until all the claims are in, said Greg Hanley of Kickham Hanley.

Kickham Hanley is also handling lawsuits involving water and sewer
charges against the following communities:

   -- Oak Park
   -- Westland
   -- Detroit
   -- Dearborn
   -- Brighton Township.

The law firm has settled cases with these municipalities:

   -- Oakland Township
   -- Ferndale
   -- Royal Oak
   -- Birmingham.[GN]


CENTURYLINK: Billing Fraud Class Action Pile-On Opportunistic
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Gately, writing for Channel Partners, reports that
class-action lawsuits are piling up against CenturyLink, with
cases now filed in California, Colorado, Oregon, New York and
Washington alleging massive billing fraud.

The latest class-action suit was filed on June 26 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of Anthony
Chavez, a former CenturyLink customer, alleging "fraudulent and
unlawful addition of false charges to its customers' accounts."

The complaint alleges CenturyLink has engaged in a "widespread and
continuous practice of designating customers as having additional
accounts that they had not requested or approved, charging
customers more than the quoted price for contracts, charging
termination fees for canceling contracts, and continuing to bill
customers after they closed their accounts.  As a result of these
bogus charges, (CenturyLink) was able to add millions of dollars
in charges to their customers' bills for services they did not
request."

This suit follows a lawsuit filed in Arizona by former employee
Heidi Heiser, who said she was fired from her job as a CenturyLink
customer service and sales agent days after notifying CEO Glen
Post of the alleged billing scheme.

Soon after, a class-action lawsuit seeking as much as $12 billion
was filed in California by Geragos & Geragos, followed by class-
action suits filed in Washington and Oregon.  In addition, the
Pomerantz Firm in New York has filed suit in New York on behalf of
CenturyLink investors.

Geragos & Geragos is working with law firms in each of the states
where class-action suits have been filed involving CenturyLink
customers.  Ben Meiselas, co-lead counsel in the suits, tells
Channel Partners they intend to file class actions in every state
where there are CenturyLink customers.

"This is an unprecedented revolt against their unlawful practices
and consumers have banded together . . . coast to coast," he said.
"The response by CenturyLink has been abysmal and a case study in
how not to react to appropriate consumer outrage toward their
corporate conduct.  Their response has been blame the consumer,
blame the customer."

Mark Molzen, CenturyLink spokesman, said "unfortunately, these
types of opportunistic follow-on claims are not unexpected."

"The fact that a law firm is trying to leverage a wrongful
termination suit into a putative class-action lawsuit does not
change our original position," he said.  "Our employees know that
if they have any concerns about ethics or compliance issues, we
have an Integrity Line in place, 24 hours a day, seven days a
week.  Our former employee did not make a report to the Integrity
Line and our leadership team was not aware of the alleged matter
until the lawsuit was filed.  The allegations made by our former
employee are completely inconsistent with our company policies,
culture and unifying principles, which include honesty and
integrity.  We take these allegations seriously and are diligently
investigating this matter." [GN]


CENTURYLINK: Consumers Protest Amid Billing Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Iboshi, writing for KGW, reports that dozens of frustrated
consumers protested outside of a CenturyLink office in Northeast
Portland on June 28 in response to the company's billing and sales
practices.

"They agree to a certain price and then when they bill you, it is
like three times the price," said Portland resident Hap Wong.

"Nothing was as it was represented to me," said Pauline Williams,
another protester from Portland.

The Oregon Consumer League organized the mid-day rally after
receiving numerous complaints.

"The door-to-door salespeople are promising deals," said
Shamus Lynsky of Oregon Consumer League.  "When they get their
first bill, customers are discovering they are getting charged
about twice as much as they were promised."

A class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Oregon,
accusing CenturyLink of defrauding customers.

"Consumers should not be nickel and dimed and defrauded by
billion-dollar corporations who come into communities and rip off
consumers," said attorney Ben Meiselas of Geragos & Geragos.

CenturyLink has quickly been expanding service in the Portland
area, offering high-speed internet and cable TV.  But with that
explosive growth has come a spike in consumer complaints.

A KGW investigation in February found dozens of customers upset
about billing problems, poor customer service and aggressive sales
tactics.

The Oregon Department of Justice reported a jump in consumer
complaints about CenturyLink from 95 in 2013 to 385 last year.

In response to the protest, Mark Molzen of CenturyLink corporate
communications provided the following response:

"CenturyLink respects people's rights to peaceably assemble.  As a
customer-focused company, if a customer requests an account
review, we are more than happy to do so.  Additionally, if a
problem is identified during a review, we will quickly work to
resolve the matter.

The fact that a law firm is trying to leverage a wrongful
termination lawsuit into a putative class action lawsuit and to
organize demonstrations does not change our original position.  We
are taking these allegations seriously and are diligently
conducting an investigation." [GN]


CHICAGO, IL: Water Dept. Faces Racial Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Hal Dardick and Ray Long, writing for Chicago Tribune, report that
African-American employees of the Chicago water department
routinely were denied promotions, subjected to racial slurs and
sexually harassed because of their race, according to a lawsuit
filed on June 29 that could further roil a department that's
already left Mayor Rahm Emanuel's City Hall grappling with yet
another racially charged controversy.

The lawsuit, filed in federal district court, comes weeks after a
leadership shakeup at the Department of Water Management as a
months-long watchdog probe ferreted out racist and sexist emails
shared among department supervisors.

The suit was filed on behalf of seven current and former employees
of the department. It seeks class-action status, which could
expand its scope if granted. The employees alleged that because of
their race, they were denied promotions and transfers, given less-
desirable work assignments, harassed and wrongly fired in some
cases.

Derrick Edmond, a 57-year-old operating engineer who has worked in
the department since 1985, alleged in the suit that he was not
only subjected to the N-word and "you people" reference, but also
to "undue disciplinary hearings in retaliation for speaking out"
and being "violently attacked and intimidated ... because of his
race."

Another plaintiff, Adebola Fagbemi, 55, in 2010 was "illegally
terminated in retaliation" after 22 years at the department, the
suit states. While at the department, he was denied promotion
"because of his race," despite holding a doctorate in
environmental engineering, and "was subjected to racially
insensitive email, cartoons and images," the filing adds.

Department officials "have done nothing to remedy the hostile work
environment," the lawsuit contends. It asks for a judge to rule
that department officials violated federal fair labor laws, bar
further discriminatory contact, and provide lost wages and back
pay to the allegedly harmed employees.

City Water Department emails reveal racial insensitivity, sexism
In response to the lawsuit, Law Department spokesman Bill
McCaffrey said the city "has no tolerance for discrimination of
employees in any form, and while we cannot comment on this lawsuit
specifically, the city does not take any allegations of this
nature lightly."

The new civil action echoes the issues raised by 62-year-old
African-American Michael Outley in a 4-year-old federal
discrimination lawsuit alleging he repeatedly was denied
promotions in the water department because of his race.

"Yes, I've heard the N-word repeatedly," Outley, an assistant
chief operating engineer, told the Tribune. He said "racism is
systemic in all parts" of the water department.

Outley's lawsuit also named five other African-American assistant
chief engineers who passed tests but did not get promotions.

Calvita Frederick, Outley's attorney, referred to the recent
shake-up and said the "unearthing of the culture of racism" gives
credibility to his lawsuit.

A day before the more recent suit was filed, Emanuel and the City
Council were singing the praises of newly appointed water
department Commissioner Randy Conner, an African-American man from
the South Side who was promoted amid the shake-up and confirmed by
aldermen on June 28.

Conner was appointed by Emanuel to replace Barrett Murphy, a
friend of the mayor's who resigned his post as the result of a
city inspector general's investigation that turned up the racist
and sexist emails. William Bresnahan, who was managing deputy
commissioner, and Paul Hansen, who was a district superintendent,
also resigned.

Chicago water commissioner resigns amid IG probe into racist,
sexist emails
In addition, Thomas J. Durkin, the general foreman of plumbers,
and John "Jack" Lee Jr., another district superintendent, later
were placed on administrative leave pending disciplinary decisions
as a result of the probe.

The Tribune in early June first reported that Hansen sent to
Murphy and Bresnahan emails in early 2014 that included anti-
Islamic and racially insensitive language. Hansen also sent an
email that included sexist language as he made fun of a colleague
in response to a lengthy message that colleague sent to Hansen
about a frozen water main.

Hours after the city released the emails to the Tribune, Conner
announced that all managers and supervisors in his department
would be provided with additional training on federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission regulations designed to prevent
discrimination in the workplace. [GN]


CU BANCORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on June 28 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of holders of CU Bancorp
("CU Bancorp") (NASDAQ:CUNB) common stock in connection with the
proposed transaction pursuant to which CU Bancorp will be acquired
by PacWest Bancorp ("PacWest"), announced on April 5, 2017 (the
"Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against CU Bancorp, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and PacWest, is captioned Parshall v. CU
Bancorp, Case No. 2:17-cv-04303 (C.D. Cal.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On April 5, 2017, CU Bancorp entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with PacWest.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of CU Bancorp will receive $12.00
per share in cash and 0.5308 of a share of PacWest common stock
(the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26,
2017.  The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement,
which recommends that CU Bancorp stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to
enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote
on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with
respect to CU Bancorp's financial projections, PacWest's financial
projections, the analyses performed by CU Bancorp's financial
advisor, and the background of the Proposed Transaction.  The
Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of CU Bancorp common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 28, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com--
regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and
shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in
state and federal courts throughout the United States. [GN]


CV SCIENCES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that no hearing date has been set by the Court at
this time with respect to the motions to dismiss the class action
lawsuit by Tanya Sallustro.

On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking
compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro
alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares
of the Company's common stock for a total investment of $15,791.

The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current
Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014
and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously
disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 were
restated to $1,082,375 -- reduction of $192,625) and restated
goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero).
Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the
Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the
following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per
share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share."

Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, six different
individuals filed a motion asking to be designated the lead
plaintiff in the litigation. On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a
ruling appointing Steve Schuck as lead plaintiff.  Counsel for Mr.
Schuck filed a "consolidated amended complaint" on September 14,
2015.

On December 11, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  After requesting several
extensions, counsel for Mr. Schuck filed an opposition to the
motion to dismiss on March 21, 2016.  The Company's reply brief
was filed on April 25, 2016.

Defendant Stuart Titus was served with the Summons & Complaint in
the case and he has recently completed briefing his motion to
dismiss, through separate counsel. No hearing date has been set by
the Court at this time with respect to the motions to dismiss.

Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations and an
estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this time

The Company operates two distinct business segments: a consumer
product segment in manufacturing, marketing and selling plant-
based Cannabidiol ("CBD") products to a range of market sectors;
and, a specialty pharmaceutical segment focused on developing and
commercializing novel therapeutics utilizing synthetic CBD. The
specialty pharmaceutical segment began development activities
during the second quarter of 2016.


CYAN INC: SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to State Court Jurisdiction
--------------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide
whether the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998
(SLUSA) abolishes concurrent state court jurisdiction over class
action lawsuits that allege only claims under the Securities Act
of 1933 (the 1933 Act).

The case is Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund,
No. 15-1439.

In 1995, prompted by concerns about "abusive and meritless"
securities lawsuits, Congress enacted the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (the PSLRA). The PSLRA imposed various
reforms--including heightened pleading standards, mandatory
disclosures by plaintiffs and an automatic stay of discovery
pending resolution of any motions to dismiss--on most federal
securities lawsuits. In response, many plaintiffs began filing
securities claims (including 1933 Act claims) in state courts,
where they contended that the PSLRA's procedural reforms did not
apply. While ordinarily a federal claim can be removed to federal
court, the 1933 Act is unusual in that it bars removal of claims
filed in state court.

In 1998, Congress responded to plaintiffs' efforts to evade the
PSLRA's reforms by enacting SLUSA, which, as the House Report put
it, sought to make "[f]ederal court the exclusive venue for most
securities class action lawsuits. . . " Among other things, SLUSA
amended the 1933 Act's removal bar to permit removal of certain
securities class actions to federal court, and amended the 1933
Act's jurisdictional provision to eliminate concurrent state court
jurisdiction as to certain securities class actions.

The question before the Supreme Court in Cyan is whether SLUSA's
amendment to the 1933 Act's jurisdictional provision, 15 U.S.C.
SEC 77v(a) (originally enacted as SEC 22(a) of the 1933 Act),
eliminated state court jurisdiction as to class actions that
allege only claims under the 1933 Act. For more than 70 years
prior to SLUSA's enactment, the 1933 Act had conferred concurrent
jurisdiction on both the state and federal courts over cases
alleging violation of the 1933 Act. The Cyan defendants argue that
the amendment eliminated state court jurisdiction over 1933 Act
class actions, and that this reading of the amendment is
consistent with SLUSA's purpose of preventing evasion of the
PSLRA's reforms and centralizing securities class action
litigation in the federal courts.

The Cyan plaintiffs argue that state courts have retained
jurisdiction as to 1933 Act class actions because the amendment
eliminates state court jurisdiction only as to certain state law
class actions--namely (according to plaintiffs) only those class
actions in which only claims under state law are asserted.

This issue arises in two contexts. First, plaintiffs whose 1933
Act class actions are removed to federal court often seek to have
their cases sent back (remanded) to state court, arguing that
removal was improper because the state court has jurisdiction
despite SLUSA, and that the 1933 Act therefore bars removal. As
described below, the dozens of federal district court decisions in
this context are divided as to whether there is state court
jurisdiction, and no federal court of appeals has addressed the
issue. (This is because orders granting remand are generally not
reviewable and orders denying remand are non-final, appealable
only after final judgment). Second, as in Cyan, defendants in
state court class actions alleging 1933 Act claims sometimes
challenge the state court's subject matter jurisdiction, arguing
that state courts lack jurisdiction to hear 1933 Act class actions
after SLUSA. Those decisions (Cyan is one of them) can be appealed
through the state system. There are just a handful of state court
decisions addressing this issue.

The need for Supreme Court guidance on this issue has taken on
increased urgency in recent years as the number of 1933 Act class
actions brought in state court has significantly increased. The
federal district courts across the country have issued conflicting
decisions on whether state courts have jurisdiction to hear class
actions asserting claims solely under the 1933 Act in light of
SLUSA's jurisdictional amendment. The inconsistency is
particularly noticeable in the two states where most securities
class action litigation is conducted: California and New York.
Federal district courts in California have generally held that
such cases can be maintained in state court and cannot be removed,
while federal judges in New York have largely ruled that SLUSA
gives federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over such actions.
(Recent decisions from federal judges in Delaware and Tennessee
have followed the approach taken by these New York cases.)

As a result of the California rulings, there has been a sharp
uptick in 1933 Act class actions filed in California state court.
According to Cornerstone Research, an average of three 1933 Act
class action lawsuits were filed in the California state courts
each year from 2010 through 2014. In 2015, however, 15 such cases
were filed. And in 2016, 18 such cases were filed. Importantly,
these state court cases are often in addition to federal actions
asserting the same claims against the same defendants, leading to
identical cases proceeding simultaneously in federal and state
court, resulting in inefficiency and potentially inconsistent
rulings. Moreover, these state court 1933 Act class actions
largely proceed unconstrained by the procedural reforms of the
PSLRA, which can have a real effect on the resolution of these
cases.

The Supreme Court's decision in the Cyan case could have a
significant impact on the future of securities class action
litigation, whichever way it rules on the issue presented. A
ruling for the defendants would result in the vast majority of new
1933 Act class actions being filed in federal court, where they
could be consolidated and managed under the PSLRA's procedural
reforms. A ruling for the plaintiffs would likely speed the flow
of 1933 Act class actions to state courts, where they would
proceed outside of the procedural reforms of the PSLRA. In
addition, the Acting Solicitor General of the United States has
urged the Court to take an intermediate position--to use this case
as a vehicle to opine on the scope of removal available under
SLUSA, and to hold that 1933 Act cases like the Cyan litigation
are now removable to federal court even if they are not subject to
dismissal.

The Court will receive briefing over the summer, hear argument in
the fall, and likely render a decision in the Cyan case in early
2018. An amicus brief supporting the defendants' side would be due
August 18, 2017, on the current schedule, but that time may be
extended. [GN]


DR. PEPPER: Faruqi Asks to be Appointed Interim Lead Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------
John Revak, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that plaintiffs in
a lawsuit against soft drink conglomerate Dr. Pepper Snapple Group
have moved to appoint interim lead counsel for their class action
lawsuit.

The firm, Faruqi and Faruqi, is a prominent civil litigation and
consumer class action law firm with offices in New York,
California, Pennsylvania and Delaware.

The motion, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division on June 20, provided
numerous reasons for the firm's appointment and the appointment of
lead interim counsel in general.

A need for a unified class voice and efficiency were two of the
main reasons cited.

"(T)his cross motion is brought on the grounds that the
appointment of lead interim class counsel will create one unified
voice for plaintiffs and all putative class members, and will
promote efficiency and conserve judicial resources," the document
said.

A desire to get the claim class certified and to protect divergent
parties and interests were also discussed.

"This cross motion is based on the reasoning that appointment of
lead interim class counsel is necessary to protect the interests
of the proposed classes and progress efficiently toward class
certification and trial."

Regarding Faruqi and Faruqi, the firm's handling of the claims
involved up until the time the motion was filed was discussed
heavily, with plaintiffs claiming that this better prepared them
to conduct discovery.

"The Faruqii Firm's prior thorough investigation into the claims
will enable them to more than adequately handle this discovery and
related motion practice," the motion said.

The firm's extensive experience litigating consumer actions and
class actions was also discussed.

"The firm has over 20 years of experience litigating complex and
class action cases involving antitrust, consumer,  financial,
corporate governance, and securities matters, and has served as
lead or co-lead counsel in numerous high-profile class actions,
which ultimately provided significant recoveries for investors,
consumers and employees."

The class action aims to combine two lawsuits related to the
alleged quantity, or lack thereof, of ginger in the soft drink
Canada Dry. The plaintiffs claim they were led to believe that the
drink contained real ginger from the label "made with real ginger"
that appeared on product packaging.

However, they allege the drink contains no ginger and are now
suing the parent company, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, for "common
law fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and unjust
enrichment."

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, which has motioned to dismiss the claim,
stated in the suit that there was no fraud or false advertising as
"a product made 'from' real ginger means that real ginger was
involved at 'the starting point' of the process," Legal Newsline
has previously reported. [GN]


DUNKIN DONUTS: Faces Class Action Over "Steak" Sandwich
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bartiromo, writing for Fox News, reports that what exactly
is "steak"? Is it a specific cut of beef? A product made from such
cuts? Or is it more a measure of quality?

Well, whatever it is, a New York resident claims there's none of
it inside the Angus Steak and Egg Sandwich at Dunkin' Donuts.

Chefun Chen, of Queens, has filed a federal class-action lawsuit
against Dunkin Brands, Inc. in the Eastern District of New York,
alleging that the company's Angus Steak and Egg Sandwich doesn't
contain any actual steak.

Instead, Ms. Chen argues that the "Steak" in Dunkin's sandwich
refers to "an inferior product of minced meat which contains
'fillers and binders,'" and therefore is misleading to consumers,
according to court documents.

In advertising their product as steak, Ms. Chen alleges that
Dunkin' implies the sandwich is "a superior product to its Classic
sandwiches and wraps."  Ms. Chen also feels that by marketing the
item in this fashion, the chain has been able to charge a premium
for the sandwich.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Chen claims to have paid $3.99 for the
sandwich at a Queens location on June 21, which is a full 50 cents
more than the Egg and Cheese Bagel with bacon, ham or sausage.  On
June 24, Ms. Chen also purchased an Angus Egg Snack N' Go Wrap for
$1.99, or 60 cents more than the classic version with ham, bacon
or sausage.

As evidence of Dunkin' Donuts' alleged misrepresentation,
Ms. Chen's lawsuit points to the company's past ad campaigns,
including a commercial called "Fellow-Steak-Lover Handshake," in
which a voiceover claims "it's a big day for steak fans" and later
encourages viewers to "celebrate with steak."  Another ad cited in
the lawsuit was Dunkin's "Angus Steak & Egg Sandwich TV Spot," in
which the phrase "steak and eggs" is repeated several times:

It's worth noting that at the end of the latter commercial, a
voiceover can be heard explaining that "Dunkin's Steak and Egg
Sandwich is oven-toasted and made with angus beef."  The item's
product page also describes the sandwich as containing "the
irresistible flavors of Angus Steak, egg and American cheese,
served on an oven-toasted bagel."

"[The] products' ingredients deviate from the label and product
description," the suit states.  Per Dunkin' Donuts' website, the
ingredients of the sandwich's "Beef Steak Patty" contain angus
beef; a marinade made with beef flavor; yeast extract; hydrolized
vegetable proteins; and over a dozen other ingredients.

Ms. Chen's lawsuit, however, may call into question the semantics
of the term "steak."  As Food and Wine points out, a hamburger
without its bun is also referred to as "Hamburg steak."  And
another popular dish -- Salisbury steak -- is made from ground
meat that has been formed into patties and topped with gravy or
meat sauce.

But Ms. Chen likely isn't swayed by such arguments, seeing as
Ms. Chen included the USDA's definition of "steak" in her suit.

"By the USDA definition, the 'Steak' in the Dunkin' Donut product
(Angus Steak and Egg Sandwich & Angus Steak and Egg Wrap) suggests
that the 'product consists of a boneless slice or strip of poultry
meat of the kind indicated.'"

Ms. Chen is seeking unspecified monetary, compensatory, treble and
punitive damages, as well as "disgorgement of all moneys obtained
by means of Defendant's unlawful conduct," among other restitution
and attorney fees.

Dunkin' Donuts initially debuted their Angus Steak and Egg
sandwich in March 2012, Brand Eating reported. [GN]


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Class Certification Hearing Reset to Sept. 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Lourdes Mora, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic
Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06714 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer entered an
order withdrawing Plaintiff's motion to amend/correct and motion
for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on July 10, 2017,
the status hearing set for August 1 is stricken and re-set to
September 11, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.  If appropriate settlement
documents are submitted on or before that date, no personal
appearance is required.

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


DYNCORP AEROSPACE: Balcazar Appeals Ruling in "Quinteros" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Edgar Balcazar, John Salas Sanchez, Luciano Quevedo
Jimenez, Rosa Esmilda Altamirano, Elvia Alvarez and Victor
Mestanza Llanos filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Nestor Ermogenes Quinteros, et al. v. Dyncorp Aerospace
Operations, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01042-RWR, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court last year ruled in favor of 19 Ecuadoreans, who claim that a
U.S. company sprayed a toxic herbicide on them as part of a
campaign to combat Colombian drug cartels.

The 19 Ecuadorean "test" plaintiffs in the case say that DynCorp,
which contracted with the U.S. State Department to carry out "Plan
Colombia," sprayed them with glyphosate as part of an effort to
eradicate cocaine and heroin poppy drug farms in Colombia.

The appellate case is captioned as Nestor Ermogenes Quinteros, et
al. v. Dyncorp Aerospace Operations, et al., Case No. 17-7093, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are Edgar Balcazar, John Salas Sanchez,
Luciano Quevedo Jimenez, Rosa Esmilda Altamirano, Elvia Alvarez
and Victor Mestanza Llanos.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are Nestor Ermogenes Arroyo Quinteros, La
Comunidad de Mataje, Providence of Esmeraldas, Ecuador, on behalf
of himself, as legal guardian of his minor child; Dociteo Sandobal
Quinteros, La Comunidad de Mataje, Providence of Esmeraldas,
Ecuador, on behalf of himself, as legal guardian of his minor
child; Digna Aney Corozo Cortez, La Comunidad de Mataje,
Providence of Esmeraldas, Ecuador, on behalf of himself, as legal
guardian of his minor child; Dolis Nimia Quintero Cortez, La
Comunidad de Mataje, Providence of Esmeraldas, Ecuador, on behalf
of himself, as legal guardian of his minor child; Celina Eugenia
Mideros Quintero, La Comunidad de Mataje, Providence of
Esmeraldas, Ecuador, on behalf of himself, as legal guardian of
his minor child; Mayra Araceli Mancilla Baguis, La Comunidad de
Mataje, Providence of Esmeraldas, Ecuador, on behalf of himself,
as legal guardian of his minor child; Maria Leydis Cortez
Sevillano; Maria Luisa Cevallos Erazo; Silvia Mariana Cortez
Quintero; Jaime Berney Bonilla Simisterra; Maria Paula Guanga;
Carmen Llanos; Maria Yaquelin; Mildre Cortez; Daniela Maria Midero
Quintero; Debora Ris; Julia Ruiz Midero; Margarita Quintero
Cortez; Maria Clemencia Lastra; Maria Leticia Reasco Quintero;
Aida Llanos Guanga; Carmen Alicia Quintero Cortez; Miriam Delgado;
Lauri Quintero; Rosita Bastida Quintero; Monica Carola Montano
Quintero; Vanesa Montano Quintero; Luz Maria Llanos Guanga;
Sanchez Mendieta Emilia Asuncion; Province of Sucumbios, Republic
of Ecuador; Venancio Aguasanta Arias, 01cv1908, husband, on behalf
of himself, as guardian of his four minor children, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; Rosa Tanguila Andi, 01cv1908,
wife, on behalf of herself, as guardian of their four minor
children, and on behalf of all others simnilarly situated; Ester
Inez Andi, 01cv1908, on behalf of herself, as legal guardian of
her minor child, and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
Santiago Domingo Tanguila Andi, 01cv1908, husband of Quechua
nationality, on behalf of himself as legal guardian of his two
minor children, and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
Laura Saritama, 01cv1908, wife of Quechua nationality, on behalf
of herself, as legal guardian of her two minor children, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; Deicy Lalangui, 01cv1908,
wife, on behalf of herself as legal guardian of her four minor
children, and on behalf of others similarly situated; Jose
Castillo, 01cv1908, husband, on behalf of himself as legal
guardian of his three minor children, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; Vidal Camacho, 01cv1908, husband on behalf of
himself, as legal guardian of her four minor children, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; Bethy San Martin,
01cv1908, wife, on behalf of herself, as legal guardian of her
three children, and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
Jofre Jijon Alvarado, 01cv1908, husband, on behalf of himself, as
legal guardian of his minor child, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; and Enma Pena, 01cv1908, wife, on behalf of
herself, as legal guardian of her minor child, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants and the Plaintiffs-Appellees are
represented by:

          Terrence Collingsworth, Esq.
          INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          621 Maryland Avenue, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 543-5811
          Facsimile: (202) 594-4001
          E-mail: tc@iradvocates.org

Defendants-Appellees Dyncorp Aerospace Operations, LLC, a Delaware
corporation; Dyncorp Techserv LLC, a Delaware corporation; Dyncorp
International, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DynCorp, a
Delaware corporation, are represented by:

          Joe G. Hollingsworth, Esq.
          HOLLINGSWORTH, LLP
          1351 I St., SW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 898-5878
          E-mail: jhollingsworth@hollingsworthllp.com


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: 3rd Amended Suit filed in "Machado" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Third Amended Class Action Complaint alleging violations of the
federal securities laws against Tivanka Ellawala, Hari
Ravichandran, Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., was
filed by Christopher Machado, Michael Rubin on June 30 in the
case, Machado v. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-11775 (D. Mass.),

Judge George A Otoole, Jr. oversees the case.

Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Christopher Machado, a
purported holder of the Company's common stock, filed on May 4,
2015, a civil action in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the Company and its chief
executive officer and former chief financial officer, Machado v.
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO.

In a second amended complaint, filed on March 18, 2016, the
plaintiff alleged claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's securities between February 25, 2014 and February
29, 2016. Those claims challenged as false or misleading certain
of the Company's disclosures about its total number of
subscribers, average revenue per subscriber, the number of
customers paying over $500 per year for the Company's products and
services, the average number of products sold per subscriber, and
customer churn. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the
purported class, compensatory damages and his costs and expenses
of litigation.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 16, 2016, which
remains pending.

In August 2016, the parties in the Machado action and another
potential claimant, who asserts that he purchased common stock in
the Company's initial public offering, agreed to toll, as of July
1, 2016, the statutes of limitation and repose for all claims
under the Securities Act of 1933 that the plaintiff and claimant
might bring, individually or in a representative capacity, arising
from alleged actions or omissions between September 9, 2013 and
February 29, 2016.

The Company and the individual defendants intend to deny any
liability or wrongdoing and to vigorously defend all claims
asserted. The Company cannot, however, make any assurances as to
the outcome of the current proceeding or any additional claims if
they are brought.

Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. ("Holdings") is a
Delaware corporation which, together with its wholly owned
subsidiary company, EIG Investors Corp. ("EIG Investors"), its
primary operating subsidiary company, The Endurance International
Group, Inc. ("EIG"), and other subsidiary companies of EIG,
collectively form the "Company." The Company is a provider of
cloud-based platform solutions designed to help small- and medium-
sized businesses succeed online.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: "McGee" Suit Remains in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, 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 case, William
McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al., remains in its early
stages.

On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee
v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant
Contact and two of its former officers. An amended complaint,
which named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed
December 19, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false
and/or misleading statements, and non-disclosure of material
facts, regarding Constant Contact's business, operations,
prospects and performance during the proposed class period of
October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015. This litigation remains in its
early stages.

The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously
defend all claims asserted. The Company cannot, however, make any
assurances as to the outcome of this proceeding.

Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. ("Holdings") is a
Delaware corporation which, together with its wholly owned
subsidiary company, EIG Investors Corp. ("EIG Investors"), its
primary operating subsidiary company, The Endurance International
Group, Inc. ("EIG"), and other subsidiary companies of EIG,
collectively form the "Company." The Company is a provider of
cloud-based platform solutions designed to help small- and medium-
sized businesses succeed online.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Chawdry and Myers Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, 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 consolidated
lawsuits by Irfan Chawdry and David V. Myers remain pending.

On December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the Constant Contact acquisition, captioned Irfan Chawdry,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11797, and on December 21, 2015, a
putative class action lawsuit relating to the acquisition
captioned David V. Myers, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11828
(together, the Complaints) were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, naming Constant Contact, each of Constant
Contact's directors, Endurance and Paintbrush Acquisition
Corporation as defendants.

The Complaints generally alleged, among other things, that in
connection with the acquisition the directors of Constant Contact
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the stockholders of
Constant Contact by agreeing to sell Constant Contact for
purportedly inadequate consideration, engaging in a flawed sales
process, omitting material information necessary for stockholders
to make an informed vote, and agreeing to a number of purportedly
preclusive deal protection devices.

The Complaints sought, among other things, to rescind the
acquisition, as well as an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and costs in the action. The Complaints were consolidated on
January 12, 2016.

On December 5, 2016, plaintiff Myers filed a consolidated amended
complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), naming as defendants the
former Constant Contact directors and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
("Morgan Stanley"), Constant Contact's financial advisor for the
acquisition. The Amended Complaint generally alleges breach of
fiduciary duty by the former directors, and aiding and abetting
the alleged breach by Morgan Stanley.

The Constant Contact defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint on December 15, 2016 and an opening brief in
support of the motion to dismiss on March 17, 2017. The defendants
believe the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint are without
merit and intend to defend against them vigorously.

Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. ("Holdings") is a
Delaware corporation which, together with its wholly owned
subsidiary company, EIG Investors Corp. ("EIG Investors"), its
primary operating subsidiary company, The Endurance International
Group, Inc. ("EIG"), and other subsidiary companies of EIG,
collectively form the "Company." The Company is a provider of
cloud-based platform solutions designed to help small- and medium-
sized businesses succeed online.


EQUIDATA INC: "Hensley" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JONATHAN HENSLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIDATA,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02606-JFW-AGR (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff will move the Court on August 14, 2017, at 1:30
p.m., before the United States District Court, Central District of
California for an order to certify a class consisting of:

   "all persons within the United States who received any
   telephone calls from Defendant or Defendant's agent/s and/or
   employee/s to said person's cellular telephone made through
   the use of any automatic telephone dialing system and/or
   artificial or prerecorded voice within the four years prior to
   the filing of this Complaint where said person had not
   previously consented to receive such calls".

The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of
Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of
Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel.

The case alleges that Defendant violates violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DRH2OnVD

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
          6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 960
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 940 1700
          Facsimile: (323) 238 8095
          E-mail: Tom@mblawapc.com
                  Nick@mblawapc.com


EXAMWORKS GROUP: Hearing on $86.5M Settlement Set for Sept. 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE


CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH POLICE
AND FIRE PENSION FUND, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,

                                          C.A. No. 12481-VCL
                   Plaintiff,


          v.


EXAMWORKS GROUP, INC., PETER B.
BACH, PETER M. GRAHAM, RICHARD
E. PERLMAN, J. THOMAS PRESBY,
JAMES K. PRICE, WILLIAM A.
SHUTZER, DAVID B. ZENOFF, WESLEY
J. CAMPBELL, J. MIGUEL FERNANDEZ
DE CASTRO, LEONARD GREEN &
PARTNERS, L.P., GOLD PARENT, L.P.,
GOLD MERGER CO., INC., PAUL
HASTINGS LLP, EVERCORE GROUP,
L.L.C. and GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.,


                   Defendants.


SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: All former record holders and beneficial owners of common
stock of ExamWorks Group, Inc. ("ExamWorks") who owned such stock
at any time during the period from April 26, 2016 through and
including July 27, 2016, together with their legal
representatives, heirs, successors in interest, transferees or
assignees.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery
Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2), that the above-captioned
action (the "Action") has been previously certified as a non-opt-
out class action on behalf of a Class as defined in an Order of
the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court") dated February 17,
2017 and proposed to be confirmed as described in the full printed
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the
"Notice").

The Action challenges the acquisition of ExamWorks by Leonard
Green & Partners, L.P., Gold Parent, L.P. and Gold Merger, Co.,
Inc. (collectively, the "Leonard Green Defendants") for $35.05 per
share (the "Merger" and "Merger Consideration"), which was
announced on April 27, 2016 and consummated on July 27, 2016 (the
"Closing").  Plaintiff asserted claims alleging that each member
of the ExamWorks Board of Directors and certain ExamWorks
executive officers breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff
and the Class in connection with the Merger.  Plaintiff also
asserted claims against the Leonard Green Defendants, Evercore
Group, L.L.C., Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Paul Hastings LLP for
allegedly aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.

YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Plaintiff in the Action has
reached a proposed settlement of the Action on the terms and
conditions set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise and Settlement entered into by and among Plaintiff and
Defendants on May 5, 2017 (the "Stipulation").  The proposed
settlement provides for (i) a partial settlement for a cash
payment of $40,000,000.00 by or on behalf of ExamWorks, the
ExamWorks Board of Directors, and the Leonard Green Defendants,
and (ii) a partial settlement for a cash payment of $46,500,000.00
by or on behalf of Paul Hastings LLP (each a "Partial Settlement"
and together, the "Settlement") for a total cash payment of U.S.
$86,500,000.00 for the benefit of the Class (the "Settlement
Amount").  If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in
the Action as well as all claims that ExamWorks or its Board of
Directors had or purportedly had against Paul Hastings LLP.

Any award by the Court to Plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of litigation expenses (the "Fee and Expense
Award") will be deducted from the Settlement Amount.  The costs of
administering the Settlement will likewise be deducted from the
Settlement Amount (the "Net Settlement Amount").  The Settlement
Amount, net of the Fee and Expense Award and Administrative Costs
(as defined in the Stipulation and the Notice), will be
distributed to members of the Class that owned ExamWorks common
stock when the Merger closed on July 27, 2016 and received or were
entitled to receive the Merger Consideration as prescribed in the
Plan of Allocation that is further described in the Notice.

A settlement hearing will be held on September 12, 2017 at 10:00
a.m. at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard L.
Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington,
Delaware 19801, to determine, among other things, whether (i) the
Court should finally confirm certification of the Action as a non-
opt-out class action on behalf of the Class and confirm
appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative and Plaintiff's
counsel as Class Counsel; (ii) the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests
of the Class; (iii) the requirements of the rules of the Court and
due process have been satisfied in connection with notice of the
proposed Settlement; (iv) the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice and the Released Claims specified and defined in the
Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be released; (v) the
proposed plan of allocation of the Net Settlement Amount should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (vi) Plaintiff's counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT.  If you have not yet
received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by
contacting the Settlement Administrator at:

ExamWorks Settlement Administration
c/o A.B. Data Ltd.
P.O. Box 173037
Milwaukee, WI  53217
877-257-1113
info@ExamworksSecuritiesLitigation.com

Any objections to the class determination, proposed Settlement,
either Partial Settlement, Judgment to be entered in the Action,
and/or Plaintiff's counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with
the Register in Chancery and delivered to Plaintiff's counsel and
a representative of Defendants' counsel such that they are
received no later than August 29, 2017, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE
REGISTER IN CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than
requests for the Notice, may be made to the following Plaintiff's
counsel:

Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr.
PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
1310 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801

DATED: JULY 14, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE

                           *     *     *

Evercore Partners 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 September 19, 2016, Evercore Group L.L.C.
("EGL"), a registered broker-dealer in the U.S., was named as a
defendant in the First Amended and Supplemented Verified Class
Action Complaint (the "Complaint"), filed in the Chancery Court of
the State of Delaware in a case entitled City of Daytona Beach
Police and Fire Pension Fund v. ExamWorks Group, Inc., et al.
(C.A. No. 12481-VCL). The Complaint was brought on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all ExamWorks common stockholders
and purports to assert a claim against EGL for aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duties by ExamWorks officers and directors
in connection with a merger transaction between ExamWorks and
affiliates of Leonard Green & Partners, L.P. that was agreed to on
April 26, 2016 and consummated on July 27, 2016.

The Complaint seeks certification as a class action and
unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees. The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
case prior to trial which would result in no liability to EGL.
The settlement is subject to appropriate documentation and court
approval.

Evercore Partners Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") is an
investment banking and investment management firm, incorporated in
Delaware on July 21, 2005 and headquartered in New York, New York.
The Company is a holding company which owns a controlling interest
in Evercore LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("Evercore LP").
Subsequent to the Company's initial public offering, the Company
became the sole general partner of Evercore LP. The Company
operates from its offices and through its affiliates in North
America, Europe, South America and Asia.


EXAR CORPORATION: Vladimir Trust Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Susan Illston on June 12 entered a
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Concerning Plaintiff's Voluntary
Dismissal and Plaintiffs' Counsel's Anticipated Application for an
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in the case, THE VLADIMIR
GUSINSKY REV. TRUST, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. EXAR CORPORATION, GARY MEYERS,
RYAN A. BENTON, BEHROOZ ABDI, IZAK BENCUYA, PIERRE G. GUILBAULT,
BRIAN HILTON, JEFFREY JACOBOWITZ, MAXLINEAR, INC., and EAGLE
ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-2150-SI
(N.D. Cal.).

The parties agree that:

     1. Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the Action with prejudice
        as to Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) and
        without prejudice as to other members of the putative
        class.

     2. This Court retains jurisdiction over the parties in the
        Action solely for purposes of further proceedings related
        to the adjudication of Plaintiff's potential Fee
        Application.

     3. If Plaintiff makes a Fee Application, the Fee Application
        will be made with the cooperation of, and also on behalf
        of, the plaintiff in the Related Action and his counsel.

     4. If the parties are unable to resolve Plaintiff's counsel's
        claim for attorneys' fees and expenses, Plaintiff shall
        file any petition and supporting papers seeking such
        relief by no later than June 28, 2017, with the hearing to
        be noticed in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2.

No class has been certified in the Action.

MaxLinear, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the
claims brought by Richard E. Marshall and The Vladimir Gusinsky
Revocable Trust with prejudice.

The Company said, "Stockholder class action lawsuits has been
filed against us, Exar, Exar's board of directors, and our merger
subsidiary, Eagle Acquisition Corporation, challenging the
acquisition, and an unfavorable judgment or ruling in these
lawsuits could prevent or delay the consummation of the
acquisition, result in substantial costs, or have an adverse
effect on our business, financial condition and operating
results."

On April 18, 2017, The Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust, which
alleges that it owns 110 shares of common stock in Exar, filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Exar, its board of directors,
MaxLinear, and Eagle Acquisition Corporation (a wholly owned
subsidiary of MaxLinear), captioned The Vladimir Gusinsky Rev.
Trust v. Exar Corp. et al., No. 5:17-CV-2150-SI (N.D. Cal.).

On April 25, 2017, Richard E. Marshall, who alleges that he owns
25 shares of common stock in Exar, filed a complaint in United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against Exar and its board of directors, captioned Marshall v.
Exar Corp. et al., No. 3:17-CV-02334 (N.D. Cal.). MaxLinear and
Eagle Acquisition Corp. are not named as defendants in the
Marshall action. The complaints generally allege that the proposed
merger with Exar offers inadequate consideration to Exar's
shareholders and that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Exar in
connection with the merger omits material information. The
complaints purport to bring class claims for violation of sections
14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 14d-9. The complaints seek certification of a class; an
injunction barring the merger or, if defendants enter into the
merger, an order rescinding it or awarding rescissory damages;
declaratory relief; and plaintiff's costs, including attorneys'
fees and experts' fees. Additional similar lawsuits may be filed
in the future.

On or about May 3, 2017, the parties to the above-referenced
lawsuits reached an agreement in principle whereby plaintiffs will
voluntarily dismiss the claims brought by Mr. Marshall and The
Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust with prejudice (but without
prejudice as to other members of the putative class), defendants
will make certain supplemental disclosures, and the plaintiffs
will seek a mootness fee from the Court. On May 3, 2017, Exar made
the supplemental disclosures contemplated by this agreement in
principle.

Should the contemplated resolution of these lawsuits not become
final, the defendants intend to vigorously defend against this and
any subsequently filed similar actions. However, the Company
cannot predict the outcome of the Exar shareholder litigation. Any
adverse determination in the Exar shareholder litigation could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and
operating results.

MaxLinear is a provider of radio frequency, or RF, and mixed-
signal integrated circuits for cable and satellite broadband
communications and the connected home, and wired and wireless
infrastructure markets.


FLUOR CORP: BakerHostetler Comments on Dismissal of Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Mersol, Esq. -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, in
an article for JDSupra, wrote that United States lawsuits
involving the law of Afghanistan are uncommon, but it is common
for employees to bring suit based on work done abroad generally,
and not just in that one country.  A recent case, however,
illustrates that while the United States may be a more convenient
forum, even a class action may founder if the law of the host
country provides for no relief.

In Allen v. Fluor Corp., Civil Action no. 3:16-CV-1219-D (N.D.
Tex. June 15, 2017), the plaintiffs were United States citizens
who worked for a contractor in Afghanistan that provided noncombat
logistical services.  Presumably, this is a euphemism for "not
military."  They contended that they worked overtime hours and
were entitled to overtime pay based on Afghanistan's Labor Code,
and sought to pursue their claims on a class-wide basis.

The defendant moved to dismiss based primarily on the argument
that (1) the dispute raised a "political question" that was beyond
the court's jurisdiction; and (2) the contractors were not covered
by Afghan law because they were considered foreigners without the
requisite work permits.  The thrust of the first argument was that
Afghanistan is a theater of war and courts should not interfere in
matters that might increase costs or discourage contractors from
accepting engagements.  The court rejected this argument for a
multitude of reasons, including that the contractor's work was
unrelated to policy, political or military decisions.

As to Afghan law, the court understandably relied on translations
of the Afghanistan Labor Code and related Afghani sources provided
by the parties.  After reviewing those materials and others, the
court concluded that the Labor Code only applied to foreign
workers who either had or later obtained Afghani work permits.
Since the plaintiffs had not obtained such permits, they had no
claim under Afghan law.

While the plaintiffs were likely disappointed by the result, at
least the court addressed this fatal flaw by way of a motion to
dismiss rather than after what almost certainly would have been
difficult and expensive discovery.  At the end of the day, their
claims failed because they had no rights under the laws they
relied upon, and no amount of discovery would have changed that
fact.

The bottom line: Class actions arising in foreign countries may
turn on difficult and fine points of the subject country's laws.
[GN]


GC SERVICES: Court Terminates Class Cert. Bid in "Kausar" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled RUKHSANA KAUSAR, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-06027-ES-JAD
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order:

   1. terminating Plaintiff's motion for class certification for
      administrative purposes only pending resolution of GC's
      motion to dismiss;

   2. directing Plaintiff not re-file her Motion for Class
      Certification unless otherwise instructed by the Court;

   3. directing Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry
      number 35.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tE0ksdoq


GREE ELECTRIC: Appeals Ruling in Homesite Suit to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai, Gree USA,
Inc., and Hong Kong Gree Electric Appliances Sales Ltd. filed an
appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled Homesite
Insurance Company, et al. v. Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of
Zhuhai, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-06769-ODW-JC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Homesite Insurance Company, et
al. v. Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai, et al., Case No.
17-55887, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, four
insurance companies filed a class action in Los Angeles, against
the Chinese appliance-maker, claiming it sold 2.5 million fire-
prone dehumidifiers in the United States, which could cause
billions of dollars in damages.

More than 2.2 million of the dangerous appliances made by Gree
Electric Appliances Inc. of Zhuhai are still in U.S. homes,
bearing prominent brand names including Frigidaire, GE and
Kenmore, the insurers say in the lawsuit filed in September 8,
2016.  Only Gree and its subsidiaries are named as defendants.

Gree built the dehumidifiers with plastic parts that could not
withstand the heat they put out, Homesite Insurance Company of the
Midwest, et al., says in the lawsuit.

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

   -- Appellants Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai, Gree
      USA, Inc. and Hong Kong Gree Electric Appliances Sales
      Ltd.'s opening brief is due on November 29, 2017;

   -- Appellees American Strategic Insurance Corporation,
      Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest, Meridian
      Security Insurance Company and Milbank Insurance Company's
      answering brief is due on December 29, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees HOMESITE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST,
AMERICAN STRATEGIC INSURANCE CORPORATION, MERIDIAN SECURITY
INSURANCE COMPANY and MILBANK INSURANCE COMPANY, on their own
behalves and on behalf of all others similarly situated insurance
companies which underwrite property insurance coverage in the
United States, are represented by:

          Nathan Dooley, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892-7900
          Facsimile: (213) 892-7999
          E-mail: ndooley@cozen.com

Defendants-Appellants GREE ELECTRIC APPLIANCES, INC. OF ZHUHAI,
HONG KONG GREE ELECTRIC APPLIANCES SALES LTD., and GREE USA, INC.,
are represented by:

          Elvin-Mathias Tabah, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          633 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-2800
          Facsimile: (213) 489-0552
          E-mail: etabah@imwlaw.com


HOME CAPITAL: Provides Update on Class Action Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------
Home Capital Group Inc. ("The Company" TSX: HCG) disclosed that
Justice Raikes of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an
order on June 28 certifying an action as against the Company and
certain of its former officers as a class action for settlement
purposes only.

The class consists of all persons and entities wherever they may
reside who acquired common shares of the Company from November 5,
2014 through to and including July 10, 2015.  The Court ordered
that any class member who wishes to exclude him, her or itself
from this settlement, must do so by submitting an opt-out election
on or before August 8, 2017 to the class action administrator,
RicePoint Administration Inc.

The settlement is part of a global settlement to resolve the
action and related enforcement proceeding by Staff of the Ontario
Securities Commission ("OSC").  In order for the settlement to
take effect, there must be final approval by the Court of the
settlement of the class action and by the OSC of the settlement of
the regulatory proceeding.  The hearing to approve the OSC
settlement is scheduled for August 9, 2017 and a hearing to
approve the class action settlement is scheduled for August 21,
2017.  More information about the class action settlement is
available at http://www.siskinds.com/home-capital-group-inc/.

                    About Home Capital Group Inc.

Home Capital Group Inc. -- http://www.homecapital.com-- is a
public company, traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange (HCG),
operating through its principal subsidiary, Home Trust Company.
Home Trust is a federally regulated trust company offering
residential and non-residential mortgage lending, securitization
of insured residential mortgage products, consumer lending and
credit card services.  In addition, Home Trust offers deposits via
brokers and financial planners, and through its direct to consumer
deposit brand, Oaken Financial.  Home Trust also conducts business
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Home Bank. Licensed to
conduct business across Canada, Home Trust has offices in Ontario,
Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Manitoba. [GN]


HONGLI CLEAN: Lifshitz & Miller Expands Class Period
----------------------------------------------------
Lifshitz & Miller, a securities class action law firm focused on
representing shareholders nationwide, disclosed that on June 28,
2017, Lifshitz & Miller filed a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Hongli Clean Energy
Technologies Corp. (NASDAQ: CETC) ("Hongli" or the "Company")
between September 28, 2012 and April 7, 2017 (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is related to the
securities class action captioned Nasin v. Hongli Clean Energy
Technologies Corp, et al., No. 2:17-cv-3244, previously filed on
May 8, 2017.

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

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

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the
Company's business, operational and financial results, which were
known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.  In
particular, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company did not properly
record the impairment of its assets on its balance sheets and in
its public filings; and (2) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

The deadline for investors to file a motion, with the court, for
appointment as a lead plaintiff in this lawsuit is July 7, 2017.

Lifshitz & Miller has extensive experience representing investors
in the prosecution of securities class actions and shareholder
derivative litigation in state and federal courts across the
country. [GN]


HYPERION MEDICAL: Bid for Class Cert. Denied Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Dr. William P. Gress, the Plaintiff, v.
Hyperion Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-04996 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Thomas M. Durkin
entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class
certification without prejudice until a more appropriate time in
the proceedings.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on July 10, 2017,
Plaintiff's motion to continue is denied as moot. No appearance
was required on July 12.

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


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: July 28 Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics Incorporated et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00302 (D. Ariz.), pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(f) of the
Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, Senior Judge Neil V Wake set oral argument on
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for July 28, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. in
Courtroom 504, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003.

Insys Therapeutics, 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
second amended complaint in the case filed by Richard Di Donato
remains pending.

The Company said, "On or about February 2, 2016, a complaint
(captioned Richard Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al.,
Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW) was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona against us and certain of our
current and former officers. The complaint was brought as a
purported class action on behalf of purchasers of our common stock
between March 3, 2015 and January 25, 2016. In general, the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the anti-fraud
provisions of the federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding our business, operations
and compliance with laws during the class period, thereby
artificially inflating the price of our common stock."

"On June 3, 2016, the court appointed Clark Miller to serve as
lead plaintiff.  On June 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint naming a former employee of Insys Therapeutics,
Inc. as an additional defendant and extending the class period.

"On December 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, primarily to add allegations relating to an indictment
of Michael L. Babich and certain of our former employees announced
on December 8, 2016, and to extend the class period from August
12, 2014 through December 8, 2016.

"On January 12, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend against
this claim."

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., which was incorporated in Delaware in
June 1990, and its subsidiaries, maintain headquarters in
Chandler, Arizona.  Insys Therapeutics is a commercial-stage
specialty pharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes
innovative supportive care products.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Named Lead Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Currier v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-01954 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A Crotty has granted the
Motion of Michael Robson for Consolidation Of The Actions,
Appointment As Lead Plaintiff, And Approval Of His Selection Of
Counsel.  The motion of Michael Robson to serve as Lead Plaintiff
in the Consolidated Action is granted.

Pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(v) of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v), Mr. Robson has selected and retained the law
firm of Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in the
Consolidated Action. The Court approves Mr. Robson's selection of
Lead Counsel.

Insys Therapeutics, 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 continues to defend against
the complaints filed by Kayd Currier and Hans E. Erdmann.

The Company said, "On or about March 17, 2017, a complaint
(captioned Kayd Currier v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case
1:17-cv-01954-PAC) was filed in United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against us and certain of our
officers. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on
behalf of purchasers of our securities between February 23, 2016
and March 15, 2017."

"In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated
the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding our business
and financial results during the class period, thereby
artificially inflating the price of our securities.

"On or about March 28, 2017, a second complaint making similar
allegations (captioned Hans E. Erdmann v. Insys Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., Case 1:17-cv-02225-PAC) was filed in the same Court.

"The plaintiffs in both actions seek unspecified monetary damages
and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend against these
claims."

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., which was incorporated in Delaware in
June 1990, and its subsidiaries, maintain headquarters in
Chandler, Arizona.  Insys Therapeutics is a commercial-stage
specialty pharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes
innovative supportive care products.


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Still Faces Customer Suit in Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit by a former individual customer, 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 December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and
Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and
Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the former
customer and members of the purported class of IB LLC's customers
were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used by
the Company to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer
brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint
seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On February 19, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
class action complaint.  On September 28, 2016, the Court issued
an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss and dismissing
the complaint in its entirety, and without providing plaintiff
leave to amend.  On October 5, 2016, the Court entered judgment in
the Company's favor.  On October 12, 2016, plaintiff filed motions
for leave to file an amended complaint and to vacate or amend
judgment, which the Company opposed.  The Court has not yet ruled
on these motions.

The Company said, "We believe that the proposed amended complaint,
like the original complaint, lacks merit.  Further, even if the
complaint ultimately were to survive a motion to dismiss, we do
not believe that a purported class action is appropriate given the
great differences in portfolios, markets and many other
circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any particular
customer's margin-deficient account.  IB LLC and the related
defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously
against the case and, consistent with past practice in connection
with this type of unwarranted action, any potential claims for
counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case shall be
fully pursued against the plaintiff."

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. ("IBG, Inc.") is a Delaware
holding company whose primary asset is its ownership of
approximately 16.6% of the membership interests of IBG LLC, which,
in turn, owns operating subsidiaries (collectively, "IBG LLC").
IBG, Inc. together with IBG LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries
(collectively, "the Company"), is an automated global electronic
broker and market maker specializing in executing and clearing
trades in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds
and mutual funds on more than 120 electronic exchanges and market
centers around the world and offering custody, prime brokerage,
securities and margin lending services to customers. In the United
States of America ("U.S."), the Company conducts its business
primarily from its headquarters in Greenwich, Connecticut and from
Chicago, Illinois. Abroad, the Company conducts its business
through offices located in Canada, England, Switzerland,
Liechtenstein, India, China (Hong Kong and Shanghai), Japan, and
Australia. As of March 31, 2017, the Company had 1,211 employees
worldwide.


JACOBS ENGINEERING: Accused by Kritch of Violating Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES KRITCH, as an individual, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. JACOBS ENGINEERING
GROUP INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Case No. BC665997 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles, June 22, 2017),
arises out of the Defendant's alleged systematic, company-wide,
unlawful treatment of the Plaintiff and hundreds of similarly
situated employees in violation of numerous provisions of the
California Labor Code and California's Unfair Compensation Law.

The Defendant fails to pay non-exempt employees for travel time
despite the fact that the employee is traveling for work related
purposes, Mr. Kritch alleges.  He adds that he and other non-
exempt employees are not paid all the overtime wages they earned
by virtue of the fact that if the travel hours were included on
their time records or included on the day they actually travelled,
they would work overtime hours, which should be reimbursed at the
overtime rate.

Jacobs Engineering is a Delaware corporation doing business in
California.  Jacobs Engineering provides technical, professional
and construction services, including all aspects Of architecture,
engineering and construction, operations and maintenance, as well
as scientific and specialty consulting.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael S. Morrison, Esq.
          Jessica S. Choi, Esq.
          ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
          401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 394-0888
          Facsimile: (310) 394-0811
          E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com
                  jchoi@akgllp.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Parker, Esq.
          M.R. PARKER LAW
          21700 Oxnard Street, Suite 2080
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 334-5711
          E-mail: michael@mrparkerlaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hit with Large Talcum Powder Case Verdicts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Smith, writing for PropertyCasualty360, reports that in the
recent past, several juries have handed down very large verdicts
against talcum powder (talc) defendants.  Notable among them has
been Johnson & Johnson, costing the company almost $200 million in
2016 alone.

Key legal developments

Three verdicts from 2016 occurred in St. Louis, Missouri, a
jurisdiction known to be favorable to asbestos plaintiffs, and
included considerable punitive damages for the plaintiffs.  Those
verdicts suggested that exposure from the talc in J&J's baby
powder caused ovarian cancer in the plaintiffs.  Juries have also
found that talc powder is connected to mesothelioma, and can be
contaminated with asbestos.

More recently, though, J&J achieved a dismissal in New Jersey, and
a trial win in Missouri.  What's more, a couple of similar cases
were thrown out of the New Jersey court for lack of scientific
support of the plaintiffs allegations.

Likely due to the recent more positive outcomes of the litigation,
J&J has decided to appeal another verdict handed down in St. Louis
in which a woman claimed talcum powder caused her to contract
ovarian cancer, the verdict demanding a payment of more than
$100,000 in punitive damages.

Lay of the land

There are two types of talc: industrial talc and cosmetic talc. In
its natural form, some talc contains asbestos.

According to the American Cancer Society, all talcum products that
are manufactured for household use have been asbestos free since
the 1970s.

The talc that is allegedly at fault in the J&J cases is cosmetic
talc, which is used to absorb moisture, soften or smooth other
cosmetic products, and to prevent cosmetics from caking.  While
industrial talc has been blamed for asbestos exposure and
resulting asbestoses for decades, cases alleging injury from talc
are relatively new, as the recent uptick in J&J cases about
cosmetic talc have shown.  These allegations that women have
contracted ovarian cancer because of cosmetic talc represents a
new class of toxic product liability cases.

Thousands of companies have used talc in their cosmetic products
in the past several decades, including Maybelline, Dior, New York
Color, LA Colors, Revlon, Almay, Clinique, Wet n' Wild, Johnson
and Johnson, Dollar General, CVS, and Rite Aid. Because of this
widespread use of talc in popular products, almost the entire
population could claim exposure to talc.  For the ovarian cancer
cases, though, the talc has to be used to aid in feminine hygiene,
so the exposure rate is much smaller than that for a potential
asbestos talc claim.

Popular, mainstream product

Because of its widespread use, almost everyone can accurately
claim that they have had exposure to cosmetic talc. It follows
that the focus of the lawsuits is not the exposure itself, but
instead the causal connection between talc exposure and the
injury, which in these cases is ovarian cancer.

While there have been some successful cases, recent decisions have
shown doubt that talc and ovarian cancer are causally related.
The research that has been done on talcum powder and its
correlation to ovarian cancer has had mixed results.  Some studies
have reported that talc users have a slightly increased risk of
ovarian cancer; others have reported no increased risk.

Research in the area is ongoing, since cosmetic talc is widely
used in many products and it is important to determine if an
increased cancer risk is real for users. [GN]


JOSEPH CORY: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Lupian" Suit to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Joseph Cory Holdings LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Alejandro Lupian, et al. v. Joseph
Cory Holdings LLC, Case No. 2-16-cv-05172, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and
the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

JOSEPH CORY HOLDINGS LLC is in the business of providing the
delivery of appliances, furniture, and other merchandise to its
customers.

The appellate case is captioned as Alejandro Lupian, et al. v.
Joseph Cory Holdings LLC, Case No. 17-2346, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ALEJANDRO LUPIAN, JUAN LUPIAN, JOSE REYES,
EFFRAIN LUCATERO and ISAIAS LUNA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: apiazza@bm.net

Defendant-Appellant JOSEPH CORY HOLDINGS LLC is represented by:

          Peter F. Berk, Esq.
          GENOVA BURNS
          494 Broad Street
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 533-0777
          Facsimile: (973) 533-1112
          E-mail: pberk@genovaburns.com


KINECTA ALTERNATIVE: Sued Over Labor Standards Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for North California Record, reports that
a Los Angeles County woman alleges that a Manhattan Beach federal
credit union failed to pay overtime wages.

Jacqueline Sloan filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on June 16 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against Kinecta Alternative
Financial Solutions Inc. alleging violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was
employed by the defendant from December 2010 to April 2016 as an
appraiser. The plaintiff holds Kinecta Alternative Financial
Solutions Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly failed
to pay for overtime work at the rate of time-and-one-half, failed
to pay wages upon termination and failed to provide adequate rest
and meal breaks to employees.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks all wages,
injunctive relief, damages, liquidated damages, restitution,
statutory penalties, interest, all legal fees and any other relief
as the court deems just. She is represented by David A.
Tashroudian, Esq. -- david@tashlawgroup.com -- and Mona
Tashroudian, Esq. -- mona@tashlawgroup.com -- of Tashroudian Law
Group APC in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:17-cv-04490-FMO-SK [GN]


LG CHEM: Settlement Available for Eligible Claimants
----------------------------------------------------
WRCB reports consumers that bought virtually any battery-powered
device may able to join in an a class action suit.

The devices must be power by what are calling lithium-ion
batteries. The class action suit is part of an agreement between
battery manufacturers and the feds as a result claims of price-
fixing for the lithium-ion batteries for a 10-year period.

The suit is a $44.95 million lithium-ion battery antitrust
settlement.

Those manufacturers are listed as LG Chem, Hitachi Maxell and NEC.

Chances are good that you may have bought several devices powered
by the batteries; laptop computers, smartphones, tablets, digital
audio players, cameras, cordless power tools and camcorders are
all included in the lawsuit. Also covered are replacement
batteries.

The items must have been purchased between January 1, 2000 and May
31, 2011.

The good news for consumers is that no proof of purchase is
required, although there's no information on how your claim may be
verified. Claims will be paid electronically.

All claims must either be submitted online by 11:59pm PT on
November 29, 2017, or for mailed in claims, postmarked by November
29, 2017, in order to be considered valid. [GN]


LM FUNDING: Faces Class Action Over High Interest Rates
-------------------------------------------------------
WFTV9abc reports that a Winter Park woman claims a past-due
homeowners association bill for $145 has turned into an astounding
demand for $77,000.

Ranya Hamza blames a debt collector that bought old association
debts then, she claims, demanded homeowners pay sky-high fees.

Action 9 investigates promotional bundle offers from AT&T
Ms. Hamza said these are scary times and she fears a debt
collector may try to take her home.

"This is killing me," she said.  "I can't sleep.  I cannot do
anything."

She bought a Winter Park Villas condo in foreclosure but didn't
know the previous homeowner owed $145 in association fees.

Then, Ms. Hamza claims, out of the blue, LM Funding in Tampa sued
to collect the debt that now totaled in the thousands.

"They put a lien on my property just like that, just like that,"
she said.

HOAs often hire attorneys to collect unpaid dues, but Ms. Hamza
faces something new and far more threatening.

The condo association had been struggling so, like many other
HOAs, it signed an agreement with LM Funding, which is a debt
collector.

LM Funding advanced the association money to cover maintenance
bills and in exchange it took over right's to collect delinquent
dues, like Ms. Hamza's debt.

But since she first disputed it, Ms. Hamza said LM Funding fees
soared and now the company claims she owes $77,000.

"And nobody is stopping them," Ms. Hamza said.

Several condo associations are trying to block LM Funding through
a recently certified class-action lawsuit.

The suit accuses the company of deceptive trade and illegally high
interest rates.

HOA consumer advocates say the practice is way out of bounds.

"The bill really adds up quickly believe me you can see it,"
Jan Bergman, with Cyber Citizens Justice, said.  "Click, click,
click, and it's up thousands of dollars."

LM Funding told Action 9 that its fees are fully disclosed and
denies the claims made in the class-action lawsuit.

Ms. Hamza hired an attorney to fight her bill, which includes dues
she's not allowed to pay until there is a settlement.

LM Funding says its debt collection benefits all homeowners, who
would otherwise be stuck covering unpaid dues.

LM Funding released the following statement to Action 9:

"I have attached a copy of the estimated safe harbor that the
(home owners) associations and their residents are eating because
of defaults by nonpaying unit owners, and the banks being able to
literally walk away with very limited liability.

This amounts to a tax of approximately $250 estimated for every
condo and HOA owner in the state of Florida.  At this point no one
seems to be really representing these folks.

This is all being left on the backs of the owners that pay.

On the lady you mentioned, if she has paid we will make sure that
all this is put behind her.  What she is doing is impacting the
folks that do pay.  They are the ones nobody ever talks about.

Thanks again for looking into these situations." [GN]


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Records $23,500 of Settlement Obligation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation 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 recorded
the $23,500 of the settlement obligation for the Class Action
Litigation as accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets
as of December 31, 2015 and as selling, general and administrative
expenses in the consolidated statements of operations for the year
ended December 31, 2015.

The Company recorded $29,571 of the proceeds from the insurers as
other receivables in the consolidated balance sheets as of
December 31, 2015 and as a deduction of the selling, general and
administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of
operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. The proceeds from
the insurers of $29,571 were deposited into the Company's escrow
account during the first quarter of 2016 and the Company
reclassified the $29,571 deposits recorded in other receivables
into restricted cash.

During the third quarter of 2016, the Company disbursed the
aggregate settlement payment of $23,500 after the court granted
plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement in July 2016.  Upon the settlement payment, $6,114 of
the insurance proceeds remained in the Company's escrow account.

The Company said, "In January 2014, our Audit Committee commenced
an independent investigation that resulted in the restatement of
certain financial statements for prior periods. In March, 2014, we
voluntarily reported to the SEC that our Audit Committee had
determined that we incorrectly recognized revenue on certain
transactions and as a result would restate our financial
statements, and that our Audit Committee had commenced an
independent investigation."

"On December 10, 2015, we entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs' representatives to settle the
Class Action Litigation for an aggregate settlement payment of
$23.5 million. This settlement payment was fully funded by
insurance proceeds that were received in the first quarter of 2016
and disbursed from the escrow account, previously recorded as
restricted cash, in the third quarter of 2016.

MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation is a Korea-based designer and
manufacturer of analog and mixed-signal semiconductor platform
solutions for communications, Internet of Things ("IoT")
applications, consumer, industrial and automotive applications.


MASSACHUSETTS: Governor Sued Over Welfare Programs
--------------------------------------------------
Catie Edmondson, writing for Boston Globe, reports that ahead of
an imminent government shutdown, a nonprofit legal-aid group filed
a federal lawsuit on June 29 against Maine Governor Paul LePage,
seeking to force the state to continue operating welfare programs.

State government appears headed for an almost certain shutdown,
beginning on June 30 at 11:59 p.m., because of a budget impasse
between LePage and the Democratic-controlled House of
Representatives. At the center of the dispute is whether to
maintain a 3 percent tax surcharge on earnings above $200,000 that
voters approved last year.

If state government shuts down, nearly 450,000 people who rely on
public assistance programs -- including MaineCare, food stamps,
and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families -- would be affected,
argued Maine Equal Justice Partners, the organization suing the
state.

The lawsuit says Maine is bound by federal law to distribute
benefits in a timely fashion. It seeks a temporary restraining
order to ensure that eligible citizens continue to receive
government assistance.

"The failure to adhere to these unequivocal requirements places
the Plaintiffs, who consist mostly of children, elderly, or
disabled low-income individuals, at serious risk to their health
and well-being," the motion said.

The suit seeks class-action status on behalf of such plaintiffs.

The governor designated a number of employees as "emergency
personnel" on June 28, including the State Police, Capitol Police,
first responders, and correctional, psychiatric, and state parks
staff. They would be expected to work during a shutdown.

But LePage's office did not address whether any efforts would be
made to ensure that individuals applying for welfare benefits
would get them. A number of agencies, including the Department of
Health and Human Services, declined to comment on plans for a
shutdown and directed all questions to LePage's office.

Republican Senate leaders could not be reached for comment.

The silence sparked a wave of anxiety in Maine, particularly among
those who rely on safety-net programs.

"We've been left in the dark," said Jack Comart, litigation
director for Maine Equal Justice Partners.

Public employees were also largely clueless about how a shutdown
would affect them. The governor said in a memo that he was "unable
to answer at this time" whether employees would be paid for the
July 4 holiday. While members of the state health plan would not
be denied service, LePage said it was possible they'd be required
to pay part or all of the insurance premiums due.

Some employees were told they would need to cancel previously
approved vacations, said AFSCME union representative Jim Mackie.
AFSCME's Maine office represents about 2,600 workers, many of whom
have been designated emergency staff.

"The way the governor has handled this has been absolutely
despicable, all these employees -- we can't get a straight answer
from anyone about what's going on," Mackie said.

The last time the state government shut down following a budget
battle was in 1991, when John McKernan, also a Republican, was
governor. Courthouses, state parks, and beaches closed for 16
days, and Mainers in the process of applying for MaineCare and
food stamps were forced to wait. [GN]


MASSAGE ENVY: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Shortened Massages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Barnett, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that
a class action lawsuit brought by plaintiffs in Missouri and
Illinois accusing Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, of causing injury
to its clients and using unfair and deceptive practices was
dismissed in federal court on June 9.

District Judge David R. Herndon dismissed the class action lawsuit
brought by Kathy Haywood of East St. Louis and Lia Holt of
Missouri.

Ms. Holt and Ms. Haywood alleged that they and other customers of
Massage Envy Franchising (MEF), a franchisor based in Scottsdale,
Ariz., had been injured and deceived by the company because they
received only 50 minutes of actual massage time during sessions
advertised as one-hour.

The plaintiffs allege that MEF franchises in O'Fallon, Ill., and
Oakville, Mo., failed to properly notify customers that roughly 10
minutes of each one-hour session would be used for consultation
and dressing.

Judge Herndon found that the "MEF cannot be held liable for the
actions of independent franchisee's employees."

Additionally, Judge Herndon ruled that neither plaintiff could
show that they suffered actual pecuniary loss or injury according
to Illinois or Missouri statutes.

Consequently, Judge Herndon dismissed the case with prejudice.

Ms. Haywood claimed she visited the O'Fallon Massage Envy
franchise on May 11, 2016, after receiving a $75 e-gift card from
her daughter.

According to the MEF website, the gift card was enough to pay for
a one-hour massage session.

Ms. Haywood reportedly only received 50 minutes of actual massage
time.  Afterward, Ms. Haywood booked a second appointment at the
same franchise on Sept. 8, 2016, and experienced the same result.

Although she said the gift card stated that each session included
"time for consultation and dressing," Ms. Haywood claimed this
information appeared only in fine print at the bottom of the email
containing the gift card, and was not made publicly available by
employees or signs posted onsite.

Ms. Haywood subsequently filed a class action complaint against
MEF on Sept. 27, 2016.

Ms. Holt booked a one-hour massage appointment at the Oakville
Massage Envy franchise sometime around April 2012.

She also claimed she only received about 50 minutes of massage
time.

On Nov. 14, 2016, Ms. Holt and Ms. Haywood together filed an
amended complaint on behalf of Missouri and Illinois consumers,
alleging MEF violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) and
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) through the use of
unfair and deceptive practices. MEF filed a motion to Dismiss and
Strike on Dec. 15, 2016.

On June 12, Judge Herndon granted MEF's motion for dismissal.

While noting that MEF encouraged franchise employees to speak with
customers about the time given to dressing and consultation in
each massage session, Judge Herndon found that MEF could not be
held liable for the failure of employees at individual franchises
to do so.

He also found that Haywood's "disappointment does not rise to the
level of actual damages under the ICFA" and therefore, "her claim
must be dismissed for failure to state an ICFA violation."

Similarly, Judge Herndon dismissed Holt's claims, citing that she
failed to prove according to the MMPA that "she received a value
that was worth less than what she paid, and therefore, cannot show
the existence of a substantial injury to herself or others." [GN]

The case is KATHY HAYWOOD and LIA HOLT, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MASSAGE ENVY
FRANCHISING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01087-DRH-SCW (S.D.
Ill.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated June 9, 2017,
is available at https://is.gd/gZvEZ0 from Leagle.com.

Kathy Haywood, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony S. Bruning,
Bruning Law Firm.

Kathy Haywood, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony S. Bruning, Jr.,
Bruning Law Firm, Ryan L. Bruning, Bruning Law Firm & Richard S.
Cornfeld, Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld.

Lia Holt, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony S. Bruning, Bruning
Law Firm & Richard S. Cornfeld, Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld.

Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, Defendant, represented by Luanne
Sacks, Sacks, Ricketts & Case, Cynthia Ricketts, Sacks, Ricketts &
Case, Joseph Edward Collins, Fox Rothschild, LLP & Nathan J. Kunz,
Sacks, Ricketts & Case.


MATTEL INC: Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set for Aug. 28
----------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, disclosed the filing of
a class action lawsuit against Mattel, Inc. for possible
violations of federal securities laws between October 20, 2016 and
April 20, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period
should contact the firm prior to the August 28, 2017 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian
Lundin, Esq., of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at
brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until a class
is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney.
You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Mattel
made false and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose
adverse information, including that the Company's retail customers
had high levels of unsold Mattel products, thus exposing it to the
heightened risk that it would have to issue its retailers
financial concessions to remove the excess inventory, and that it
would experience slower sales growth in future periods. Upon the
release of this news, shares of Mattel lowered in value
materially, which caused investors harm according to the
Complaint.

Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights.

         Brian Lundin, Esq.
         Lundin Law PC
         Telephone: 888-713-1033
         Fax: 888-713-1125
         E-mail: brian@lundinlawpc.com  [GN]


MCDONALD'S USA: Sued Over Illegal Restriction of Hiring
-------------------------------------------------------
McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, a Southern California employee and
consumer law firm, has filed a class action lawsuit in federal
court against McDonald's USA, LLC and McDonald's Corporation in
the Northern District of Illinois.  The lawsuit alleges that
McDonald's, which is a franchisor of thousands of independent
restaurant stores, has both a written agreement and an unwritten
policy that one franchise cannot hire current or former (for a 6-
month period) employees of another franchise restaurant without
that franchisee's consent.

The lawsuit alleges that while McDonald's fosters healthy
competition for sales between franchises, it has implemented this
antitrust "no-poach" agreement to restrict wage competition and
artificially suppress employees' wages.

The Class Representative in the case, Leinani Deslandes, was a
victim of this practice.  She was employed as a mid-level manager
in a Florida McDonald's franchise restaurant where she had not
received promised promotions and raises for her valuable
contribution to the success of the franchise.  The lawsuit alleges
that when she applied to another franchise that paid substantially
more for the same position and had better promotion opportunities,
she was told by the prospective franchise that they could not hire
her unless she was "released" by her franchise owner, which was a
condition of the McDonald's franchise agreement.  Her franchise
employer refused to "release" her to the better paying franchise
and continued to deny her promised raises and promotions.  Because
the fast-food industry is based on knowledge of the product, and
more importantly, knowledge of the unique organizational systems,
the experience and skills developed while working for McDonald's
do not transfer to other fast-food chains.  As a result, after
finally quitting her McDonald's franchise, Ms. Deslandes was
forced to start over with an entry level position in another
industry at a substantially lower wage.

McCune Wright Arevalo partner, and lead attorney in the case,
Richard McCune, states that this is an important case.  "This
practice of 'owning' an employee not only affected Ms. Deslandes
and other employees where their franchise owner will not 'release'
them, but it artificially holds down the wages of all of the
McDonald's workers that are being paid less than their true market
value and are struggling to make ends meet.  Meanwhile, McDonald's
stockholders, executives and franchise owners are getting rich off
the backs of these workers.  This is unfair, and a practice that
should not be allowed to continue.  We hope this lawsuit will stop
this practice, which will in turn increase wages for tens of
thousands of hard working McDonald's employees, helping them to
earn a fair and living wage for their families." [GN]


MODESTO JUNIOR: Sued Over Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------
Garth Stapley, writing for Modesto Bee, reports that librarians
shushed some black students while giving a pass to white students,
says a civil rights lawsuit against Modesto Junior College and the
Yosemite Community College District.

Upset, the black students paid a visit to a college dean and
lodged written complaints. Instead of helping them, administrators
barred them from the library and slapped them with formal
discipline for "disruptive behavior," the lawsuit says.
The action was filed in Fresno's federal court by Debra Berry, 57,
a grandmother and former student who since has left MJC. She was
disciplined along with others, most in their late teens and early
20s when the incidents occurred in the fall of 2015 at the east
campus library, Berry said.

A spokeswoman on June 28 said the district has not been served
with legal notice of the lawsuit.

Librarians and a security guard confronted black students for
being too noisy and grouping in more than four people per table,
the lawsuit says. School staff then took photographs of the black
students and demanded school identification, Berry said. Some were
on the verge of tears when she gathered them and walked them to
the dean's office, she said.

"They were only picking on certain kids" while ignoring similarly
sized groups of white students, Berry said. "If these were my own
children, would I step back and let it happen? I don't care if
they were white children; what (staff) was doing was wrong."

Eleven students filed complaints, several with descriptions of
being bullied by librarians and security. One said a student
library worker who is white told the black students she had been
directed to keep an eye on them.

Soon after, an associate dean sent Berry and others a notice
requiring that they meet with him to discuss the matter. When they
didn't, several received letters suspending their library
privileges and placing them on one year of probation.

The discipline was a clear "effort to intimidate plaintiffs and
other students from following through with this civil rights
complaint," Berry said in her lawsuit.

"We were retaliated against," she said on June 26 in an interview.

Some students were told that pursuing action against the school
could jeopardize their participation in sports and cheerleading,
Berry said. Photographs of black students were emailed to coaches,
the lawsuit says.

The document is structured as a class-action complaint to allow
other plaintiffs to join the lawsuit. Berry, relying on help from
a friend, filed it without consulting a lawyer. U.S. District
Judge Michael Seng found several legal problems and dismissed
irrelevant claims related to Fourteenth Amendment due process
rights, Eighth Amendment inmate rights, and claims related to the
photographs and sexual harassment. He also erased class-action
potential.

But Seng allowed Berry, at this point, to pursue claims related to
the alleged race-based discrimination and retaliation.

Berry, a former aircraft assembly line worker, said she's never
been involved in activism.

"I'm a peacemaker," she said. "In high school, I hated fights,
gossip and trouble. But when there is wrongdoing, I'm going to
speak up on it." [GN]


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Small Plan Participant Seeks Big Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nevin E. Adams, writing for NAPA Net, reports that a participant
in a plan with 27 participants is seeking the return of the
"excessive and unreasonable asset-based fees charged by Nationwide
for recordkeeping and administrative services, and to prevent
Nationwide from charging those excessive fees in the future."

The suit (Schmitt v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., S.D. Ohio, No.
2:17-cv-00558, complaint filed 6/27/17), filed by one Alana
Schmitt, "Individually and as representatives of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Andrus Wagstaff,
PC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and all other similarly situated
individual account retirement plans," says that while small plans
such as the AW plan have the same legal and regulatory obligations
as Fortune 500 companies, they "lack the expertise to navigate the
labyrinth of federal regulations governing employee benefit plans
or the time and resources to seek out and employ expert financial
and legal consultants to understand the complexities of the
marketplace."

The AW plan -- which at the end of 2015 had 27 participants and
$1.1 million in plan assets -- contracted with Nationwide under
Nationwide's Retirement Flexible Advantage Retirement Plans
Program to provide recordkeeper and other services for a fee of 1%
per year of the AW plan assets.

However, citing a survey by NEPC, the suit claims claim that the
median recordkeeping cost of 113 plans was $64 per plan
participant in 2015. However, the suit claims that, "as a result
of Nationwide's asset-based fees, in 2014 the AW Plan paid
approximately $9,400 for recordkeeping services for a plan that
had only 15 participants at the end of the year, amounting to $625
per participant." Those recordkeeping fees increased to $11,000
for 22 participants the next year, amounting to $500 per
participant, according to the suit. Consequently, the plaintiff
alleges that Nationwide's fees are "almost 10 times more than the
reasonable amount of compensation that should have been charged to
the AW Plan."

Not mentioned in the suit is that the average plan size of the
respondents to the NEPC survey was $1.1 billion and each plan had
more than 12,000 participants.

The suit claims that, based on information on the Nationwide
website (37,000 retirement plans, 2.4 million participants and
$114 billion in retirement plan assets in the Nationwide
Retirement Flexible Advantage Retirement Plans Program) and the 1%
fee charged to the AW plan, "Nationwide potentially earns over $1
billion a year in excessive compensation at the expense of the
individual plan participants."

The suit notes that while the AW plan fiduciaries may have
breached their fiduciary duties to the AW plan by entering into
the Nationwide contract, "the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear in
Harris Trust and Savings Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 530
U.S. 238, 245 (2000), that 29 U.S.C. SEC 1132(a)(3) authorizes a
civil action against a non-fiduciary who participates in a
transaction prohibited by 29 U.S.C. SEC 1106(a)."

Disclosure Dismissal

The suit invokes a 2014 settlement of a class action against
Nationwide for "failing to disclose indirect compensation received
from mutual funds to retirement plans," but notes that "after
settling that action in 2014, Nationwide continued to charge Plans
unreasonable fees for recordkeeping and administration but now
discloses its unreasonable fees" in 408(b)2 disclosures. "However,
merely disclosing that a Plan is paying an unreasonable fee does
not make the fee reasonable . . . ."

                     'Responsible' Recordkeepers'

The plaintiff describes recordkeeping services for a qualified
retirement plan as "essentially fixed and largely automated," and
-- as other excessive fee litigation has alleged previously --
claims that the cost of recordkeeping and administrative services
"depends on the number of participants, not the amount of assets
in the participant's account." They note that "responsible
recordkeepers charge recordkeeping fees for each plan participant
rather than as a percentage of plan assets," because otherwise,
"as plan assets increase through participant contributions or
investment gains, the recordkeeping revenue increases without any
change in the services provided."

The suit claims that the Nationwide program "takes advantage of
the lack of sophistication and bargaining power of the AW Plan and
other similarly situated plans by unscrupulously adding 75 to 100
basis points (0.75% to 1.00%) to the cost of every investment
option available to retirement plan investors in the AW Plan and
the Plans." Moreover, the plaintiff alleges that where the
Nationwide fee is less than 1%, Nationwide receives the balance of
the 1% fee via revenue-sharing from the mutual fund provider. They
note that Vanguard charges 9 basis points (0.09%) to manage and
administer the Vanguard Short Term Bond Index Fund (Admiral Class)
investments, but Nationwide charges 100 basis points (1%) to track
a participant's investment in the Vanguard Short Term Bond Index
Fund on the Nationwide platform.

The suit claims that if Nationwide charged the median fee, the AW
plan (and similarly situated plans) would pay $1,728 per year for
recordkeeping services, rather than $11,000 per year, saving the
plan participants 84 basis points (0.86%) per year -- and that the
plaintiff would have paid $53 in fees in 2015 rather than $373, a
savings of $320.

                           Other Examples

The suit claims that Nationwide has charged other Plans
unreasonable fees to serve as the recordkeeper, citing the
examples of the EXAL Corporation 401(k) plan, with 431 active
participants and average assets of $20.4 million, which the suit
says paid Nationwide $134,673 in direct and indirect compensation
for recordkeeping in 2015, or $323 per participant. They note
that:

-- the Class of America, Inc. Employees' Savings Plan, with 310
    active employees and $21 million in total assets, paid
    Nationwide $127,900 in direct compensation and undisclosed
    indirect compensation, or $414 per participant;
-- the JMAC, Inc. 401(k) Plan, with $21 million in assets and 634
    active participants, paid $142,448 in direct compensation for
    recordkeeping in 2015, or $224 per participant; and
-- the Rocky Brands, Inc. 401(k) Plan, with 527 active
    participants and average assets of $25.8 million, paid
    Nationwide $60,056 in direct compensation and undisclosed
    indirect compensation, or $114 per participant.

In what it describes as "an apparent attempt to hide the actual
dollar amount of fees being paid by the AW Plan and the individual
benefit plan investors," the suit claims that the 2014 and 2015
Form 5500s show that no administrative or other fees were paid by
the AW plan. . . .  to anyone. It goes on to claim that those
reporting "failures" ". . . . appear deliberately intended to
conceal the amount of Defendants' actual compensation for services
provided to the Plan," and that those errors "suggest that
Defendants have also failed to comply with the disclosure
requirements" of 408(b)2.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio by Dyer Garofalo Mann & Schultz, seeks to
represent a class of as many as 37,000 retirement plans and 2.4
million individual investors -- those invested in the Nationwide
Retirement Flexible Advantage Retirement Plans Program. [GN]


NAVY FEDERAL: Hit with Class Suit for Overcharging Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two
California consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against
financial institution, alleging breach of contract.

Jenna Lloyd and Jamie Plemons filed a complaint, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, June 22 in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Navy Federal Credit Union, alleging the defendant charged optional
overdraft protection services (OOPFs) on the plaintiff's APPSN
transactions.

According to the complaint, Lloyd and Plemons sustained monetary
damages as the result of being charged with OOPFs. The plaintiffs
allege Navy Federal Credit Union allowed the APPSN transactions to
incur OOPFs.

Lloyd and Plemons seek trial by jury and seek restitution,
disgorgement, actual damages, punitive and exemplary damages,
interest, attorney fees and other relief the court deems just and
proper. They are represented by attorney Jeffrey Kaliel of Tycko &
Zavareei LLP in Washington.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number 3:17-cv-01280-BAS-RBB [GN]


NEAL TRUCKING: Court Approved $195,000 "Poisson" Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Ronald Poisson, the Plaintiff, v. Neal
Trucking Inc. et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:13-cv-02241-VAP-
DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillips entered an
order granting Plaintiff's to approve a settlement agreement.

The agreement provides $195,000 for the settlement fund, which
includes (1) Class Counsel's attorneys' fees of $48,750 and
$10,000 in litigation costs; (2) Simpluris Inc.'s settlement
administrator costs of up to $5,000; (3) a class representative
service award to Plaintiff Ronald Poisson of $1,000; and (4) a
California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) penalty of $5,625.
These deductions leave a total of $124,625 to be distributed, of
which 81% is allocated to all class members and 19% is allocated
to the 203 portion of the settlement for former employee class
members.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee from
approximately August 2006 to April 2013.  Plaintiff alleges that
he and other non-exempt truck drivers were not paid for all of the
hours that they worked.  Plaintiff's allegations against
Defendants include the failure to pay overtime, provide
uninterrupted meal periods, provide required rest periods, and pay
wages that were due at the time of employee termination.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qp9ETnc9


NEW YORK: Class Action Against Port Authority Revived
-----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that in
1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade to overturn
state abortion bans and the Watergate scandal was in full swing.

Meanwhile, a case that attracted far less public attention began
in the Southern District.  A class action suit was filed on behalf
of minority persons seeking training in jobs in the New York
construction industry, which at the time had a well-documented
history of racial discrimination.

Not long after the plaintiffs, Albert Percy, Manuel Mejia and John
Mercado, won their motion to represent the class, the case stalled
and was closed administratively, but not finally disposed.  The
plaintiffs never got the relief they were looking for.

But some four decades later, the case, Percy v. Brennan, 73-cv-
4279, has sprung back to life, and the firm representing the
plaintiffs is fighting to consolidate the case with a lawsuit
filed in 2015 in the Eastern District of New York against the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey.

In the Port Authority case, a group of plaintiffs make claims
similar to those that Percy made back in the days when O.J.
Simpson was better known as a football player: that their
financial livelihoods were negatively affected because they were
deprived of opportunities to fully participate in the American
economy.

John Kernan of Kernan Professional Group said the case was closed
administratively so that it could be "reactivated in the future if
it becomes necessary,"

"Since relief never occurred, it has become necessary,"
Mr. Kernan said.

The Percy case was "sidetracked," Mr. Kernan said, after the U.S.
Department of Labor began to push a program in which certain
percentages of minorities would be hired for public works
projects.  "That's when things went to sleep," he said.

In the more-recent class action suit against the Port Authority,
the plaintiffs say that the entity failed to comply with mandatory
affirmative action requirements that it was required to undertake
as a condition of receiving federal grants for such major
facilities as LaGuardia Airport.

The Port Authority's noncompliance, the plaintiffs argue, has
contributed to disproportionate unemployment rates for young black
men.

Mr. Kernan said the class certified in Percy -- "all black and
Spanish-surnamed persons who are capable of performing, or capable
of learning to perform, construction work within" New York City --
is "identical" to the class in the Port Authority suit.

In May, Southern District Judge Loretta Preska issued an order to
return Percy to the docket.

But in a letter entered on June 26, the Southern District U.S.
Attorney's Office, which represents the DOL in the case, asked
Southern District Judge P. Kevin Castel to order former closure of
Percy.

Citing documents recently obtained from the National Archives,
Assistant U.S. Attorney Casey Lee said the argument that the case
was administratively closed is incorrect, and noted that late
Southern District Judge Morris Lasker, who originally presided
over Percy, said in a 1977 hearing that "there is no reason to
continue the existence" of Percy. [GN]


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Sued by Santello for Not Paying Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SANTELLO; on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC (DBA THE
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY), Case No. 17-1959
(Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., June 22, 2017), alleges that
Northwestern Mutual fails to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated inside sales employees an hourly rate equal to one and
one-half times their regular hourly rate for all the hours that
they worked in excess of 40 hours during multiple weeks of their
employment.

According to the complaint, Northwestern Mutual has a company-wide
policy of not paying similarly situated sales employees regularly
working from its offices, an hourly rate or salary.  Northwestern
Mutual only paid them commissions based on sales made.

Northwestern Mutual Investment Services, LLC, doing business as
The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, is a foreign
limited liability corporation with a principal office located in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Northwestern Mutual has call centers
located throughout Massachusetts, including in Boston, Braintree,
Wellesley and Woburn.  Northwestern Mutual uses these offices to
regularly sell insurance products to customers over the
telephone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Livingstone, Esq.
          John Regan, Esq.
          REGAN LANE LLP
          43 Bowdoin Street, Suite A
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (857) 277-0902
          Facsimile: (857) 233-5287
          E-mail: jay@reganlane.com
                  jregan@reganlane.com


NY LIFE SECURITIES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Bouyea" Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
APPOLLONIABLISS BOUYEA; on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. NY LIFE SECURITIES LLC (DBA NEW YORK) LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY), Case No. 17-1960 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk
Cty., June 22, 2017), alleges that the Defendant had a company-
wide policy of not paying inside sales employees an hourly rate
equal to one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for all
the hours that they worked in excess of 40 during multiple weeks
of their employment.

NY Life is a foreign limited liability corporation with a
principal office located in New York City.  NY Life has call
centers located in Boston, Bridgewater, and Waltham,
Massachusetts, that it uses to regularly sell insurance products
to customers over the telephone.  NY Life employed Ms. Bouyea as
an inside sales employee from March 2016 until March 2017.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Livingstone, Esq.
          John Regan, Esq.
          REGAN LANE LLP
          43 Bowdoin Street, Suite A
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (857) 277-0902
          Facsimile: (857) 233-5287
          E-mail: jay@reganlane.com
                  jregan@reganlane.com


ONTARIO HOCKEY: McCarthy Tetrault Attorneys Discuss Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis, Esq. -- pdavis@mccarthy.ca -- and Oksana Migitko,
Esq., of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote
that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently certified a
case that, as reported by some media, could change Canadian hockey
forever.  Two representative plaintiffs, Sam Berg, a former
Niagara IceDogs forward, and Danial Pachis, a former member of the
Oshawa Generals, will be allowed to pursue a lawsuit against the
OHL and its clubs alleging that junior hockey players do not get
what they are entitled to under the law, namely, minimum wages for
their services on the basis that they are employees.  The case
demonstrates the difficulties of pursuing a cross-border class
action where some members of the class reside in Canada and others
reside in the United States.

Students or employees?

Berg and Pachis' case revolves around the "single profound
question" of whether junior players are employees of their clubs
and, if so, at what moment amateur athletes become professionals.
The plaintiffs allege that major junior players are employees
because their relationships with their respective teams are
identical to those between an employer operating a commercial
organization and its staff.  The OHL and its teams claim, in
contrast, that a player is not an employee but a participant in a
multi-faceted development program that focuses on athletes' sports
training, education, and character growth.  The clubs' aim is to
provide young players with educational opportunities to choose a
right career path both inside and outside of hockey.

The proposed class alleges that an average "allowance" or "expense
reimbursement" for a junior hockey players is in the range of $50
to $600 for 45 to 65 (or more) hours of "work" per week.  Although
players receive benefits like access to trainers or equipment,
they are not compensated for overtime, holidays, or vacations.
Those who chose to reside with billet families get accommodation,
as well as a compensation for groceries and living expenses.  In
addition, young players are provided with educational packages and
some can get full scholarships covering all costs to attend
colleges and universities.

The Decision

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify the action as a class
proceeding on behalf of all players who played in those leagues
commencing October 17, 2012 who were under the age of 18.

Emotions ran high in a case involving an issue so close to the
Canadian experience.  As Justice Perell explained:

Perhaps because of the novelty of their claim and the
extraordinary importance that hockey has to Canadians, Messrs.
Berg and Pachis excessively over-pleaded both their case and also
their certification motion, and they engaged in an emotive public
relations pitch to portray the players that formed the putative
class as exploited workers of avaricious employers.

The Defendants excessively responded to the certification motion
with an emotive public relations pitch of their own. The
Defendants portrayed themselves as magnanimous patrons and
benefactors of their hockey players.  The Defendants portrayed
Messrs. Berg and Pachis as bitter, self-centered, and ungrateful
also-rans, whose proposed class action would irreparably damage
the enterprise that had been built for the players to advance
their careers and their prospects to play in the professional
hockey leagues.

The Defendants' response to the certification motion, which is a
procedural motion and neither a labour relations bargaining
session nor a test of the merits of a claim, was a catalyst for
still more evidentiary excesses and more propaganda by both sides
building up to a hot-pitched certification motion that involved a
contest about the truth of the teams' and the leagues' argument
that Messrs. Berg's and Pachis' allegedly selfish class action
would bring on the eve of destruction for hockey players.
In addition to challenging the viability of a number of the claims
pleaded, the defendant leagues and teams argued that the case
should not be allowed to proceed against OHL teams based in the
U.S. Because the dispute concerns relations between the team and
its players, the parties agreed that U.S. law would govern any
employment relationship involving those teams.

The issue of forum arose in two parts of the certification
decision. First, the defendants argued that the Ontario court had
no jurisdiction over an action brought against foreign defendants
and that an Ontario class action is not a convenient forum in
which to litigate on these issues.  Second, the defendants argued
that even if the court could decide the issue, a class proceeding
was not the preferable procedure in which to resolve questions of
American law relating to American teams and players.

Justice Perell resolved the jurisdiction questions against the
defendant teams. In two sentences, he decided that he had
jurisdiction over the claims given that the OHL contracts were
governed by Canadian law and that Ontario was forum conveniens.

However, Perell J. was not satisfied that a class proceeding in
Ontario was the preferable procedure to resolve the claims based
on statutory employment law of Michigan and Pennsylvania.  The
plaintiffs argued that the employment law regimes of the three
jurisdictions (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ontario) were
essentially the same respecting the question of whether an
individual should be classified as an employee.  Justice Perell
rejected this position as "it begs the bigger question of whether
the well-established common law tests for an employment
relationship should be applied at all to classify the relationship
between a sport's team owner and the amateur athletes that are
team members."  He observed that the players in Michigan and
Pennsylvania had courts and administrative agencies available to
them to decide the application of U.S. law, as opposed to an
Ontario court.  Justice Perell concluded:

Given the importance of spectator sports to American and Canadian
culture and society. . . I think it befits courts on either side
of the border to at least pause to question whether they should
decide an issue that their sovereign neighbor would prefer to
decide for itself.  This is a different question than asking
whether, as an aspect of the conflicts of law, an American court
would enforce an Ontario class action judgment and rather asks
whether a Canadian court should respect the American court's
jurisdiction to enforce its own law when it is ready to make it
available.

Justice Perell therefore certified the proceeding on behalf of
only the Ontario players against the Ontario teams.

Implications

Berg demonstrates the difficulties of combining multi-
jurisdictional classes in one class action, particularly
international classes.  The court's approach to the question
highlights that defendants may resist certification both on
traditional jurisdictional arguments and through showing the
potential for complications in applying foreign law on novel legal
questions.  Although Justice Perell expressly refused to apply
principles of comity, order, and fairness traditionally associated
with the law of jurisdiction, those principles seem to guide the
substance of his reasoning.  Judges on certification motions will
have to continue to grapple with the dividing line between
jurisdiction and preferability in international class actions.
[GN]


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: HELCO's Motion to Dismiss Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, 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 HELCO motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit is under consideration by the court.

On August 5, 2016, George Douvris, Stephanie Douvris, Michael
Hale, Cheryl Cacocci, Hillary E. Wilt and Christina Bryan, acting
for themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated
residents of the lower Puna District, filed a complaint in the
Third Circuit Court for the State of Hawaii seeking certification
of a class action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
consequential and punitive damages, attorney's fees and statutory
interest against PGV and other presently unknown defendants.

On December 12, 2016, the federal district court granted
plaintiffs' motion for joinder of HELCO as a co-defendant, and the
case, which had previously been removed to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Hawaii, was remanded back to the Third Circuit
Court. The amended complaint alleges that injuries and other
damages in an undisclosed amount were caused to the plaintiffs as
a result of an alleged toxic release by PGV in the wake of
Hurricane Iselle in August 2014.

On March 25, 2017, HELCO filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint in the Third Circuit Court against itself, on
several grounds.

Following briefing and oral arguments, the HELCO motion to dismiss
is under consideration by the court. The Company believes that it
has valid defenses under law, and intends to defend itself
vigorously.


OVASCIENCE INC: Discovery Ongoing in Suffolk County Case
--------------------------------------------------------
OvaScience, 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 parties are engaged in discovery in the
class action lawsuit filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Company said, "On October 9, 2015, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts against us, several of our officers
and directors and certain of the underwriters from our January
2015 follow-on public offering of our common stock. The plaintiffs
purport to represent those persons who purchased shares of our
common stock pursuant or traceable to our January 2015 follow-on
public offering. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the Company defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose material information in the Company's January
2015 Registration Statement and incorporated offering materials.
Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seek, among other relief,
unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, pre-and post-
judgment interest and fees, costs and disbursements."

"On December 7, 2015, the OvaScience defendants filed a notice of
removal with the Federal District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  On December 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the action to the Superior Court. Oral argument on the
motion to remand was held on February 19, 2016.

"On February 23, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion to remand the action to the Superior Court. On February 26,
2016, a second putative class action suit was filed in the Suffolk
County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against
the Company, several of our officers and directors and certain of
the underwriters from the January 2015 follow-on public offering.
The complaint is substantially similar to the complaint filed in
October 2015.

"The two actions subsequently were consolidated and plaintiffs
filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on June 17, 2016.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Those motions
were denied by order dated December 22, 2016. The parties
currently are engaged in discovery.

"We believe that the complaint is without merit and intend to
defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however,
that we will be successful. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse
to the Company or the other defendants could have a material
effect on our consolidated financial position and results of
operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. At
present, we are unable to estimate potential losses, if any,
related to the lawsuit."

OvaScience, Inc., incorporated on April 5, 2011 as a Delaware
corporation, is a global fertility company developing proprietary
potential treatments for female infertility based on scientific
discoveries about the existence of egg precursor, or EggPCSM,
cells.


OVASCIENCE INC: Massachusetts Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
OvaScience, 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 yet to appoint a lead plaintiff
and lead counsel in a class action lawsuit in Massachusetts.

The Company said, "On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court for the
District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of our
present and former officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Court has
yet to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

"We believe that the complaint is without merit and intend to
defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however,
that we will be successful. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse
to the Company or the other defendants could have a material
effect on our consolidated financial position and results of
operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. At
present, we are unable to estimate potential losses, if any,
related to the lawsuit."

OvaScience, Inc., incorporated on April 5, 2011 as a Delaware
corporation, is a global fertility company developing proprietary
potential treatments for female infertility based on scientific
discoveries about the existence of egg precursor, or EggPCSM,
cells.


PACIFIC PERSONNEL: Accused by "Smith" Suit of Not Paying Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER SMITH, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. PACIFIC PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC.
a California Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-03594 (N.D. Cal., June
22, 2017), accuses the Defendant of failure to pay overtime wages
and to provide accurate itemized statements, among other
violations of the California Labor Code.

Pacific Personnel Services, Inc., is a California corporation that
conducts substantial and regular business throughout the state of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com
                  kyle@bamlawca.com
                  aj@bamlawca.com


PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridans Dismiss New York Suit
----------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, 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 Sheridans have voluntarily dismissed
their class action in the Southern District of New York.

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora Media Inc. in the federal district court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleges
misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public
performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15,
1972. On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which was appealed to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court litigation
is currently stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision.

On December 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the
Anti-SLAPP motion. On March 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested
certification to the California Supreme Court on the substantive
legal questions and a response from the California Supreme Court
is pending.

Between September 14, 2015 and October 19, 2015, Arthur and
Barbara Sheridan filed separate class action suits against the
Company in the federal district courts for the Northern District
of California, District of New Jersey and Northern District of
Illinois. The complaints allege a variety of violations of common
law and state copyright statutes, common law misappropriation,
unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of
rights of publicity arising from allegations that we owe royalties
for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to
February 15, 1972.

Currently, the action in California is stayed pending the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc.,
and the actions in New Jersey and Illinois are stayed or otherwise
suspended pending the Second Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie et
al. v. Sirius XM.

On March 16, 2017, the Second Circuit issued the final mandate in
Flo & Eddie et al. v. Sirius XM, and on April 6, 2017, the
Sheridans voluntarily dismissed their action in the Southern
District of New York.

Pandora is a music discovery platform, offering a personalized
experience for listeners wherever and whenever they want to listen
to music -- whether through earbuds, car speakers or live on
stage.


PANDORA MEDIA: Ponderosa Twins Suit Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, 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 class suit by Ponderosa Twins Plus One et
al. remains stayed.

On September 7, 2016, Ponderosa Twins Plus One et al. filed a
class action suit against the Company alleging claims similar to
that of Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media Inc. The action is
currently stayed in the Northern District of California pending
the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora
Media, Inc.

Pandora is a music discovery platform, offering a personalized
experience for listeners wherever and whenever they want to listen
to music -- whether through earbuds, car speakers or live on
stage.


PASADENA, CA: Suit Demands Refund For Parking Fees, Fines
---------------------------------------------------------
Jason Henry, writing for Pasadena Star News, reports that a class
action lawsuit filed against Pasadena could require the city to
refund millions in parking fees and fines paid by drivers who
parked near electronic "Pay & Display" kiosks.

The litigation, filed by the firm Abelson Herron Halpern on behalf
of disgruntled drivers, alleges Pasadena improperly used the
kiosks for years because the city's parking ordinance only allowed
traditional parking meters until earlier this year.

"Simply put, the City's 'Pay & Display' ticket kiosks were not
authorized parking meters and, therefore, the City's collection of
parking fees, issuance of citations and levying of fines were all
unauthorized and improper," wrote Michael Abelson, the attorney
representing the driver, in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in the case include a Pasadena resident fined $48
for an expired meter and two South Pasadena residents who each
paid $1 at the "Pay & Display" kiosks in December 2016 and January
2017, respectively.

The litigation demands that Pasadena refund all fees and fines
from January 2016 to January 2017 related to the use of the "Pay &
Display" ticketing systems.

Pasadena charges about $1.25 per hour at the kiosks, but an
"expired meter" citation might cost more than $45. An
investigation by this newspaper in 2015 found that few of the
citations appealed in Pasadena are ever dismissed.

It's unclear how much Pasadena brings in from fines and fees
related specifically to the kiosks. Pasadena received about $1.5
million from all parking meters and about $5.8 million from
parking tickets in Fiscal Year 2015-2016, according to the city.

Abelson said there is already some precedent for the lawsuit --
his own against the city last year.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge sided with him last year
when he presented the same argument during an appeal of his own
parking ticket. The judge overturned Abelson's ticket, after the
city denied his appeals twice, because Pasadena's definition for a
parking meter hadn't been updated since 1993.

About two weeks later, Abelson got another ticket in the same
area. After going through the process a second time, he spoke with
others who described similar experiences.

"I was told time and time again how unfair the parking system is
in Pasadena, how maddening it is, how vigorously they enforce it,"
he said. "Even when you're in the right, you can't get any remedy.
No one will return your calls and they summarily deny everything."

The City Council approved an update to Pasadena's parking
ordinance incorporating the newer kiosks in February, about a
month after the plaintiffs filed a claim with the city.

Pasadena Spokesman William Boyer said staff initially began
working on the changes in 2015 in an effort to keep the code up to
date with new technologies. It was not related to any litigation,
he said in an email.

The city declined to comment specifically on the pending class
action suit.

A staff report from January 23, 2017 recommended modernizing the
definition for parking meters after a "recent parking citation
appeal resulted in the dismissal of a citation based on outdated
language in the PMC."

Abelson believes the report is referencing the personal ticket he
got overturned in the superior court. Simply changing the language
of the ordinance doesn't make it right, he argued.

"If they were wrong to collect it, they need to give it back," he
said. [GN]


PAYLESS: Car Rental Customers File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Michael Finney, writing for KGO, reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit with plaintiffs from multiple states some Payless
car rental customers were charged for services they said they
declined, and then had difficulty money back or were still waiting
for a refund.  One of the customers came to us with a similar
complaint.

"I was going to go to Seattle, to visit my grandson and rent a
car," Jeanne Mackie said.

Ms. Mackie, of Gilroy, went online and reserved a car with Payless
rental cars.  However, she later found she could actually pay less
with a different company.

"Payless was $150 more," she said.

Payless said she could cancel for a $50 fee, so Jeanne agreed.
However, instead of removing charges, she said, payless added
them.  "Not only did they not refund my money with the
cancelation, they charged me twice."

Instead of no rentals, she was charged for two rentals at $468
each. She contacted Payless.

"They said, 'we'll look into it.'  That was on March 20th," said
Ms. Mackie.

Payless did remove one rental charge, but not the second one.

"About once a week I continued to call them.  Honestly I called
them 15 times," Mackie told ABC7.

Months later she still no refund.

"So, a friend said call 7 On Your Side, and I did," Ms. Mackie
said.

KGO found Jeanne isn't the only one upset with Payless.

The Better Business Bureau says it has received more than 800
complaints about Payless in the past three years and has given the
company an F rating.  In May, the BBB urged attorneys-general in
four states -- California, Florida, New Jersey and Oklahoma to
investigate Payless and its parent company, Avis Budget group for
what the BBB calls a pattern of issues in sales practices,
contracts, and billing with consumers.

Also, it faces a proposed class action lawsuit which claims
Payless and Avis "trick consumers into paying for insurance,
roadside assistance, fuel options and other add-ons they
specifically declined."

The suit claims fees from those add-on products, not rentals, are
the company's bread and butter.

KGO reached out to Payless but a company attorney said it would
not comment on pending litigation.

However, Payless did help out in Jeanne's case, finally wiping out
that extra $468 charge.

The company issued a statement, saying "we were not aware of the
second reservation until she contacted us again.  Because the
reservation was more than six months old, there was a delay in
reviewing the case and processing the refund."

Ms. Mackie was happy with the results.

"7 On Your Side was amazing.  You were fantastic, and I don't
think you should ever stop doing this because it's such an aid to
the consumer.  You're great," Ms. Mackie said. [GN]


POINTBREAK MEDIA: "Molina" Suit Sues over Unauthorized Robo-calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN MOLINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. POINTBREAK MEDIA LLC dba POINT BREAK
MEDIA; JUSTIN RAMSEY; DUSTIN PILLONATO, the Defendants, Case No.
9:17-cv-80794-DMM (S.D. Fla., July 4, 2017), seeks to secure
redress because Defendants willfully violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by causing unsolicited calls to be
made to Plaintiff's and other class members' cellular telephones
through the use of an auto-dialer and/or pre-recorded or
artificial voice message.

This case alleges a scheme developed by an online marketing/Search
Engine Optimization (SEO) company to market its services to
consumers and businesses. Defendants' marketing efforts are
achieved via aggressive telemarketing campaigns in plain violation
of TCPA. All Defendants acted in concert to market SEO services to
consumers through telemarketing efforts that include placing
unauthorized "robo-calls" to consumers via ATDS and/or a pre-
recorded or artificial voice.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made one or more
unauthorized calls to Plaintiff's cell phone using an automatic
telephone dialing system (ATDS) and/or prerecorded voice for the
purpose of soliciting business from Plaintiffs.

Point Break Media specializes in search engine optimization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
          DIEPPA MARTINEZ PLLC
          14 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 1001
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 722 6977
          Facsimile: (786) 870 4030
          E-mail: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law

               - and -

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: (310) 507 7924
          Facsimile: (310) 507 7906
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com


POST HOLDINGS: No Ruling Yet on Motion for Immediate Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that there has been no ruling on defendants'
motion to have denial of their summary judgment motions certified
for immediate appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and
some 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg
products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production
and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified
damages. All cases were transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The case involves three plaintiff groups: (1) direct purchasers of
eggs and egg products; (2) companies (primarily large grocery
chains and food companies that purchase considerable quantities of
eggs) that opted out of any eventual class and brought their own
separate actions against the defendants ("opt-out plaintiffs");
and (3) indirect purchasers of shell eggs.

Motions related to class certification: In September of 2015, the
court granted the motion of the direct purchaser plaintiffs to
certify a shell-egg subclass, but denied their motion to certify
an egg-products subclass. Also in September of 2015, the court
denied the motion of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs for class
certification. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs have filed an
alternative motion for certification of an injunctive class, and
the denial of their original class-certification motion is subject
to appeal.

Motions for summary judgment: In September of 2016, the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss claims based on
purchases of egg products, thereby limiting all claims to shell
eggs. Certain of the egg products purchasers whose claims were
dismissed have appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Also in September of 2016, the court denied individual motions for
summary judgment made by Michael Foods and three other defendants
that had sought the dismissal of all claims against them.

All four defendants moved to have denial of their summary judgment
motions certified for immediate appeal to the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals; there has been no ruling on those motions.

Settlements by Michael Foods: On December 8, 2016, Michael Foods
reached an agreement to settle all class claims asserted against
it by the direct purchaser plaintiffs for a payment of $75.0
million. The Company has paid such amount into escrow. This
settlement is subject to approval by the court following notice to
all class members. While the Company expects the settlement will
receive the needed approval, there can be no assurance that the
court will approve the agreement as proposed by the parties.

On January 19, 2017, Michael Foods entered into a settlement, the
details of which are confidential, with the opt-out plaintiffs
(excluding those opt-out plaintiffs whose claims relate primarily
or exclusively to egg products; several of those plaintiffs are
now appealing the dismissal of the egg products claims). This
settlement was paid by the Company as of March 31, 2017. Michael
Foods has at all times denied liability in this matter, and
neither settlement contains any admission of liability by Michael
Foods.

During the six months ended March 31, 2017, the Company expensed
$74.5 million, included in "Selling, general and administrative
expenses" on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations,
related to these settlements. No expense was recorded related to
these settlements in the three and six months ended March 31,
2016. At September 30, 2016, the Company had accruals related to
these settlements of $28.5 million that were included in "Other
current liabilities" on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Under current law, any settlement paid, including the settlement
with the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the settlement with the
opt-out plaintiffs, is deductible for federal income tax purposes.
These settlements do not affect (a) the claims of the opt-out
plaintiffs who are appealing the dismissal of egg-products claims
from the case or (b) the claims of the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs. While the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in
the egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a
result of the settlements, there is still a possibility of an
adverse outcome in the remaining portions of the case.

"At this time, however, we do not believe it is possible to
estimate any loss in connection with these remaining portions of
the egg antitrust litigation. Accordingly, we cannot predict what
impact, if any, these remaining matters and any results from such
matters could have on our future results of operations," the
Company said.

Post is a consumer packaged goods holding company operating in
four reportable segments: Post Consumer Brands, Michael Foods
Group, Active Nutrition and Private Brands.


PREMIER COURIER: "Wright" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled BRANDON WRIGHT On behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PREMIER COURIER,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00420-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a class pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act:

   "all drivers who worked full time for Premier Courier, Inc. as
   "independent contractors" during the period three years
   preceding the commencement of this action to the present."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hTGlSu9j

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Superior Building
          815 Superior Avenue E., Suite 1325
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (440) 498 9100
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
          46 Chagrin Falls Plaza No. 104
          Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
          Telephone: (440) 973 9000
          E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com


RAZZLE DAZZLE: Conditional Class Cert. Bid Granted in "Romero"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ROSA ROMERO and LUIS MATEO, and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. RAZZLE DAZZLE
BARBERSHOP, INC., RAZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP INC., MZZLE DAZZLE
BARBERSHOP MIDTOWN, LLC., RAZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP SOBE, INC.,
MZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP SOMI, LLC, and ELENA LINARES,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-24873-AOR (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes granted Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification.

The Court held that:

   - Within 2 weeks of the date of the Order, the Defendants
     shall provide to Plaintiffs the current or last known
     addresses of the individuals who worked at the Razzle Dazzle
     Barbershop locations for the 3-year period preceding the
     filing of the complaint.

   - Notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs will be initially
     limited to mailings to those addresses.

   - The form of the Notice and the Consent to Join into Lawsuit
     are approved for mailing subject to an update to reflect the
     undersigned's name as the presiding judge.

   - These rulings are additional notice to potential opt-in
     plaintiffs, whether by site posting or email without
     prejudice to Plaintiffs seeking leave to provide
     communication, after the initial wave of responses is
     reviewed.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ateo4pcd


RELAY DELIVERY: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Rivera, Carlos Montiel, Alfonso Gonzalez, Rigoberto
Salas, Luis Ramirez Herrera, Pedro Gonzalez, Carlos Munoz
Hernandez, Antonio Vivar, Osman Samayoa, Sergio Juarez, Jesus
Ortiz, Andres Fuentes, Jorge Ortiz, Noe Escamilla, Hugo Sapon,
Jose Rivera, Gustavo Juarez, Irael Jiguan, Juan J. Lopez, Justino
Cuenca, Aurelio Salas, Jorge Alcaraz And David Rojas, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Relay Delivery, Inc., Alex Blum And Michael Chevett, in their
individuals and professional capacity, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-05012 (S.D.N.Y., July 4, 2017), seeks to recover minimum
and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have repeatedly
deprived Plaintiffs of their lawfully earned wages as well as
their overtime compensation. For the majority of the relevant time
period, Plaintiffs were paid an amount of $6 per hour irrespective
of the number of hours they worked.[BN]

Relay Delivery provides delivery solutions for restaurants. The
company offers software and delivery team. The company was
incorporated in 2014.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lina Franco, Esq.
          LINA FRANCO LAW, PC
          42 Broadway, Suite 12-126
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone (800) 933 5620
          E-mail: www.LinaFrancoLawPC.com


REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Settlement in Warren Police Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Revance Therapeutics, 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 scheduled a Settlement
Fairness Hearing on May 19, 2017.

As of May 2015, the Company became subject to a securities class
action complaint, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System v. Revance Therapeutics Inc., et al, CIV 533635,
which was filed on behalf of City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System in the Superior Court for San Mateo County,
California against the Company and certain of its directors and
executive officers at the time of the June 2014 follow-on public
offering, and the investment banking firms that acted as the
underwriters in the follow-on public offering.

In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants
misrepresented the then-present status of the RT001 topical
clinical program and made false and misleading statements
regarding the formulation, manufacturing and efficacy of its drug
candidate, RT001 topical, for the treatment of crow's feet at the
time of the follow-on public offering. The complaint has been
brought as a purported class action on behalf of those who
purchased common stock in the follow-on public offering and seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On November 6, 2016, the action was transferred to the Superior
Court for the County of Santa Clara (the "Court") and assigned the
following case number, 15-CV-287794. On October 31, 2016, the
parties executed a stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation"),
pursuant to which, in exchange for a release of all claims by the
plaintiff class, the Company has agreed to settle the litigation
for $6.4 million in cash, of which the Company expects $5.9
million to be covered by its insurance policies. The Stipulation
maintains that the defendants, including the Company, deny all
wrongdoing and liability related to the litigation.

On January 6, 2017, the Court issued an order (the "Order")
preliminarily approving the settlement proposed in the Stipulation
by and among the plaintiff class and all named defendants in the
Action, including the Company (the "Settlement"), and directing
that notice of the proposed settlement be given to all members of
the plaintiff class (the "Class Members"). The Court scheduled a
hearing ("Settlement Fairness Hearing") on May 19, 2017, at 9:00
a.m. Pacific Time at the Court, located at 191 North First Street,
San Jose, CA 95113, to, among other things, make a final
determination whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate and should be approved by the Court. The Order provides
that Class Members may opt out of the Settlement and that they may
object to the Settlement in advance of and/or at the Settlement
Fairness Hearing.

The Stipulation and the Settlement remain subject to final
approval by the Court and certain other conditions. It is
anticipated that the Settlement, if approved, would not have a
material impact on the Company's business.

The Company said, "This litigation, including the Settlement,
remains subject to uncertainty, and the actual defense and
disposition costs may depend upon many unknown factors. Therefore,
there can be no assurance that this litigation will not have a
material adverse effect on our business, results of operations,
financial position or cash flows."

Revance Therapeutics, Inc., or the Company, was incorporated in
Delaware on August 10, 1999 under the name Essentia Biosystems,
Inc. The Company commenced operations in June 2002 and on April
19, 2005, changed its name to Revance Therapeutics, Inc. The
Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on the
development, manufacturing and commercialization of novel
botulinum toxin products for multiple aesthetic and therapeutic
indications.


ROCKET FUEL: Oct. 11 Final Hearing on $3.15 Million Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Rocket Fuel Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No.: 4:14-cv-03998-PJH-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Court will hold a
hearing at 9:00 a.m. on October 11, 2017 before the Honorable
Phyllis J. Hamilton, United States District Judge, at the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
United States Courthouse - Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, 1301 Clay
Street, Oakland, CA 94612.  At this hearing the Court will
consider whether the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and the
Fee and Expense Application are fair, reasonable, and adequate. If
there are objections, the Court will hear them. Any Class Member
who has not previously submitted a request for exclusion from the
Class may appear and be heard, to the extent allowed by the Court,
to state any objections. If the Court approves the Settlement, and
after any objections and appeals are resolved, a claims
administrator appointed by the Court will make the payments that
the Settlement allows.

About $3.15 million was paid on Rocket Fuel's behalf into an
escrow account that is earning interest for the benefit of the
Class. The balance of this fund, after payment of Court-approved
attorneys' fees and expenses, taxes, and the costs of claims
administration, including the costs of printing and mailing this
Notice and the cost of publishing newspaper notice, will be
divided among all Class Members who submit valid claim forms (also
called Authorized Claimants).

The Settlement Fund of $3.15 million, plus interest earned, minus
the costs and expenses, will be distributed on a pro rata basis to
Authorized Claimants.  Depending on the number of Authorized
Claimants, and the number of eligible shares purchased by
Authorized Claimants and when those shares were purchased and
sold, the average distribution is estimated to be $0.15 per
damaged share before deduction of the costs and Court-approved
payments.

Lead Counsel, without further notice to the Class, will apply to
the Court for payment of the Claims Administrator's fees and
expenses incurred in sending this Notice, administering the
Settlement and distributing the Settlement proceeds to the
Authorized Claimants. These fees and expenses will be paid from
the Settlement Fund and will reduce the amount available for
distribution to Authorized Claimants. The same will be true of
Court-awarded attorneys' fees and expenses to Lead Counsel.

To be eligible to share in the distribution of the Settlement
proceeds, a member of the Class must timely submit a timely and
valid Claim Form, postmarked or received no later than October 12,
2017.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or
Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and payment of
expenses may be mailed to the Court in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice and postmarked no later than
September 12.

Rocket Fuel Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017, that a hearing on plaintiffs' motion seeking
preliminary approval of the class action settlement was scheduled
for May 31, 2017.

The company said, "On September 3, 2014 and September 10, 2014,
respectively, two purported class actions were filed in the
Northern District of California against us and certain of our
officers and directors at the time. The actions are Shah v. Rocket
Fuel Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03998, and Mehrotra v. Rocket
Fuel Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-04114. The underwriters in the
initial public offering on September 19, 2013, or the "IPO," and
the secondary offering on February 5, 2014, or the "Secondary
Offering," were also named as defendants."

These actions were consolidated and a consolidated complaint, In
re Rocket Fuel Securities Litigation, was filed on February 27,
2015. The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants made
false and misleading statements about the ability of our
technology to detect and eliminate fraudulent web traffic, and
about our future prospects. The consolidated complaint also
alleged that our registration statements and prospectuses for the
IPO and the Secondary Offering contained false and misleading
statements on these topics.

The consolidated complaint purported to assert claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 (the "Exchange Act claims"), and for violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act (the "Securities Act
claims"), on behalf of those who purchased the our common stock
between September 20, 2013 and August 5, 2014, inclusive, as well
as those who purchased common stock in the IPO, and a claim for
violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act in connection
with the Secondary Offering. The consolidated complaint sought
monetary damages in an unspecified amount.

All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on
December 23, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court dismissed the
Securities Act claims and all but one of the statements on which
the Exchange Act claims were based. The court also dismissed all
claims against the outside directors and the underwriters of the
public offerings.

On February 24, 2017, the parties advised the court that they had
reached an agreement in principle to settle the case in its
entirety. The agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit is
subject to several conditions, including preliminary and final
approval from the court, among other things.

If the settlement is finalized and approved by the court, the
settlement amount will be funded by the company's insurance
carrier.

On April 25, 2017, the parties executed a stipulation of
settlement, and plaintiffs filed the executed stipulation of
settlement along with a motion seeking preliminary approval of the
settlement. A hearing on that motion was scheduled for May 31,
2017.

Additional information on the case is available at:

           http://www.rocketfuelsecuritieslitigation.com

Rocket Fuel Inc. (the "Company") was incorporated as a Delaware
corporation on March 25, 2008. The Company is a provider of
artificial-intelligence digital advertising solutions
headquartered in Redwood City, California.


SAN JOSE, CA: Asks Court to Decertify Firefighter Employees Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DARREN WALLACE, KEITH HART, MARK LEEDS, and
other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAN
JOSE, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-04914-HRL (N.D. Cal.), the
Defendant will move the Court on August 15, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.,
for an order to decertify a conditionally certified collective
action.

The Defendant said, "This lawsuit arose because Lead Plaintiffs
(erroneously) believe that the City misapplies a 'credit' against
its overtime obligations in the unique situation where a
firefighter employee works significant hours both below and above
the FLSA-overtime threshold. Lead Plaintiffs have asked this Court
to make their lawsuit into a collective action on behalf of all
firefighter employees in the City, yet they cannot point to
evidence that a single one of those employees (1) worked the
combination of overtime resulting in the 'unique situation' they
allege or (2) was underpaid overtime after March 2013 as a result.
That failure in evidence alone precludes Lead Plaintiffs from
proceeding with a collective action. That the opt-in class
consists of employees with different job titles, work schedules,
and duties further underscores the impropriety of collective
action. The defense respectfully requests that the Court rule that
Lead Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proving they
are similarly situated, and that the Court accordingly decertify
their conditional collective action."

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard Doyle, Esq.
          Nora Frimann, Esq.
          Kathryn J. Zoglin, Esq.
          Matthew Pritchard, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
          200 East Santa Clara Street, 16th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113-1905
          Telephone: (408) 535 1900
          Facsimile: (408) 998 3131
          E-mail: cao.main@sanjoseca.gov


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Securities Class Action Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Safirstein Metcalf LLP updates investors in SeaWorld Entertainment
Inc. ("SeaWorld" or the "Company") (NYSE:SEAS) with regard to the
pending shareholder class action in California and the recent
disclosure by the Company about the Department of Justice (DOJ)
and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation
regarding the impact of the "Blackfish" documentary.

On June 23, 2017, SeaWorld disclosed that it had received
subpoenas from both the U.S. Department of Justice and the
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
investigations "concerning disclosures and public statements made
by the Company and certain executives . . . including those
regarding the impact of the 'Blackfish' documentary, and trading
in the Company's securities."

On this news, SeaWorld's stock has fallen in after-hours trading,
causing tens of millions in losses to shareholders.

If you purchased shares of SeaWorld and have questions about your
legal rights, please call 1-800-221-0015, or email
info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com.

On September 9, 2014, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed
against SeaWorld over alleged securities laws violations. The
complaint alleges that SeaWorld failed to disclose in its IPO
documents that it had improperly cared for and mistreated its Orca
population which adversely impacted trainer and audience safety,
that it continued to feature and breed an Orca that had killed and
injured numerous trainers, and that material uncertainties and
risks existing at the time of the IPO could adversely impact
attendance at its family oriented parks.  When details of the
Company's alleged improper practices were revealed by the
documentary film "Blackfish", SeaWorld misled investors by
claiming the decrease in attendance at its parks was caused by the
Easter holiday and other factors.  The complaint alleges that the
decline in attendance was really caused by the mounting negative
publicity from the improper practices at SeaWorld Entertainment
Inc. that were revealed by the "Blackfish" film.

On February 27, 2015 an amended complaint was filed and on
May 29, 2015 the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
case.  On March 31, 2016, the court granted the May 2015
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims without
prejudice.  On May 31, 2016, a second amended consolidated
complaint was filed on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock
of SeaWorld between August 29, 2013 and August 12, 2014, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  On June 29, 2016 the defendants filed their
motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint.  In
or about September 2016, the court denied the June 2016
defendants' motion to dismiss the case.

                About Safirstein Metcalf LLP

Safirstein Metcalf LLP focuses its practice on shareholder rights.
The law firm also practices in the areas of antitrust and consumer
protection.  All of the Firm's legal endeavors are rooted in its
core mission: provide investor and consumer protection. [GN]


SEECO INC: Cambiano Appeals Order in "Smith" Suit to 8th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Movants Kathleen Cambiano and James Huett filed an appeal from a
court order dated June 2, 2017, relating to the lawsuit entitled
CONNIE JEAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SEECO, INC. n/k/a SWN Production (Arkansas),
LLC., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00435-BSM, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The appellate case is captioned as Connie Smith, et al. v.
Kathleen Cambiano, et al., Case No. 17-2396, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 16,
2017, the Hon. Brian S. Miller entered an order in the lawsuit
denying the Defendants' motion to disqualify class counsel, remove
the class representative and decertify the class, and Defendant
DeSoto Gathering Company's motion for a one-week continuance.

On June 21, 2017, the Class Action Reporter reported that
testimony in the lawsuit began on June 6 with two hours of
questions for an educator from Nashville, Tenn., who sued
Southwestern Energy Co. and three subsidiaries, alleging
underpayment for the use of her land during the natural-gas boom
in north-central Arkansas.  The lawsuit is one of the biggest
class-action lawsuits to emerge from Fayetteville Shale activity.

Connie Jean Smith's case hinges on what a 12-person federal jury
will decide is "reasonable" for SWN Production, formerly known as
SEECO, to deduct from Ms. Smith's promised cut of the company's
proceeds.  Ms. Smith's case is class-action certified to represent
about 12,000 Arkansas landowners whom Smith's attorneys say were
cheated out of $98 million during years of royalty payments for
the use of their land to produce natural gas.  That averages out
to more than $8,000 per lease.

The docket in the Appellate Case stated that on the Appellate
Court's own motion, the briefing schedule is temporarily held in
abeyance.[BN]

Movants-Appellants Kathleen Cambiano and James Huett are
represented by:

          David A. Hodges, Sr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID HODGES
          212 Center Street, Suite 500
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-2400
          Toll Free: (800) 642-8082
          Facsimile: (501) 374-8926
          E-mail: david@hodgeslaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Connie Jean Smith, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ben H. Caruth, Esq.
          Edward Allen Gordon, Esq.
          GORDON, CARUTH & VIRDEN, PLC
          Post Office Box 558
          105 S. Moose Street
          Morrilton, AR 72110-0558
          Telephone: (501) 354-0125
          E-mail: bcaruth@gcvlaw.com
                  agordon@gcvlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian L. Cramer, Esq.
          Tanner W. Hicks, Esq.
          Jack A. Mattingly, Jr., Esq.
          MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC
          210 W. Oklahoma Avenue
          Guthrie, OK 70344
          Telephone: (405) 603-222
          E-mail: brian@mroklaw.com
                  tanner@mroklaw.com
                  jackjr@mroklaw.com

               - and -

          Erik P. Danielson, Esq.
          DANIELSON LAW FIRM, PLLC
          909 Rolling Hills Drive
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 935-8060
          E-mail: erik.danielson@danielsonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sean M. Handler, Esq.
          Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Natalie Lesser, Esq.
          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087-0000
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: shandler@ktmc.com
                  gjarvis@ktmc.com
                  kjustice@ktmc.com
                  nlesser@ktmc.com
                  jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  mtroutner@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Brad E. Seidel, Esq.
          SEIDEL LAW FIRM, PC
          6 Hedge Lane
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 537-0903
          E-mail: bradseidel@me.com

               - and -

          James Fitzgerald Valley, Esq.
          J F VALLEY, ESQ, P.A.
          423 Rightor Street
          P.O. Box 451
          Helena, AR 72342
          Telephone: (870) 619-1750
          Facsimile: (870) 619-1760
          E-mail: james@jamesfvalley.com

Defendants-Appellees SEECO, Inc., Now known as SWN Production
(Arkansas), LLC; Desoto Gathering Company, LLC; Southwestern
Energy Services Company and Southwestern Energy Company are
represented by:

          Jess Askew, III, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-3000
          E-mail: Jess.Askew@KutakRock.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Daily, Esq.
          DAILY & WOODS, P.L.L.C.
          58 S. Sixth Street
          P.O. Box 1446
          Fort Smith, AR 72902-1446
          Telephone: (479) 782-0361
          E-mail: tdaily@dailywoods.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Ellis, Esq.
          R. Paul Yetter, Esq.
          YETTER & COLEMAN LLP
          909 Fannin
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 632-8000
          E-mail: rellis@yettercoleman.com
                  pyetter@yettercoleman.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Tabolsky, Esq.
          SCHIFFER ODOM HICKS & JOHNSON PLLC
          700 Louisiana
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 357-5150
          Facsimile: (713) 357-5160
          E-mail: mtabolsky@sohjlaw.com

               - and -

          Rex M. Terry, Esq.
          HARDIN & JESSON
          5000 Rogers Avenue
          P.O. Box 10127
          Fort Smith, AR 72917-0127
          Telephone: (479) 452-2200
          Facsimile: (479) 452-9097
          E-mail: terry@hardinlaw.com


SERVICE KING: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and
Bhowmik filed a class action complaint against Service King Paint
& Body, LLC for allegedly failing to provide their California
workers with the legally required thirty minute uninterrupted meal
periods, off duty rest breaks and reimbursement for all business
expenses incurred on the company's behalf.  The Service King Paint
& Body class action lawsuit, Case No. BC661567 is currently
pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The lawsuit filed against Service King Paint & Body, LLC alleges
that the Golden State employees working for the company were not
provided timely thirty minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to
their fifth hour of work.  The Complaint further alleges that as a
result of their rigorous work schedules, the workers were not
afforded the opportunity to take compliant off duty rest breaks
either.  California law requires employers to provide their
non-exempt employees paid on an hourly basis with thirty minute
meal periods before the employee works five hours and off duty
rest breaks.

The lawsuit additionally alleges that Service King required
employees to purchase uniforms with the company's logo and did not
provide reimbursement for the necessary business expenses they
incurred on the company's behalf.

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
Service King Paint & Body, LLC, please call Attorney Nicholas De
Blouw at the firm Blumenthal Nordrehaug and Bhowmik at
(866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a Los Angeles employment law
firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, fight back
against unfair business practices, including violations of the
California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. [GN]


SIENTRA INC: $10,900,000 Settlement Awaits Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the actions entitled John M. Flynn v. Sientra,
Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-07548-SJO-RAO, pending before the United
States District Court for the Central District of California (the
"Federal Action"), and Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System
v. Sientra, Inc., et al., Master File No. CIV 536013, pending
before the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Mateo, remains pending.

The Settlement, if approved, will result in the creation of a cash
settlement fund of $10,900,000.  The Settlement Amount, plus
accrued interest and minus the costs of this Notice and all costs
associated with the administration of the Settlement, as well as
attorneys' fees and expenses, as approved by the Courts, will be
distributed to Class Members pursuant to the Plan of Allocation
that is described in the Notice.  A total of $9.65 million of the
Settlement Amount will be allocated to the 1933 Act claims, and
$1.25 million of the Settlement Amount will be allocated to the
1934 Act claims.

The Federal Court appointed the law firms of Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Pomerantz LLP and Wolf Popper LLP to represent
Plaintiffs and the Class in the Federal Action, and the State
Court appointed the law firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Johnson & Weaver, LLP, Kaufman, Coren & Ress, P.C. and Abraham,
Fruchter & Twersky, LLP to represent Plaintiffs and the Class in
the State Action.

Sientra, 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 settlement a final approval hearing in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California was scheduled for May 22, 2017, and a final approval
hearing in the San Mateo Superior Court was scheduled for May 31,
2017.

On September 25, 2015, a lawsuit styled as a class action of the
Company's stockholders was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit names
the Company and certain of our officers as defendants, or the
Sientra Defendants, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  The plaintiff seeks damages and an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.
On November 24, 2015, three stockholders (or groups of
stockholders) filed motions to appoint lead plaintiff(s) and to
approve their selection of lead counsel.

On December 10, 2015, the court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiffs and approving their selection of lead counsel.  On
February 19, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint, which added claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act and named as defendants the
underwriters associated with the Company's follow-on public
offering that closed on September 23, 2015, or the Underwriter
Defendants.

On March 21, 2016, the Sientra Defendants and the Underwriter
Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss, or the Motions to
Dismiss, the consolidated amended complaints. On April 20, 2016,
lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motions to Dismiss,
and the Sientra Defendants and Underwriter Defendants filed
separate replies on May 5, 2016. On June 9, 2016, the court
granted in part and denied in part the Motions to Dismiss.

On July 14, 2016, the Sientra Defendants moved the court to
reconsider its June 9, 2016 order and grant the Motions to Dismiss
in full. On August 4, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to
the motion for reconsideration. On August 12, 2016, the court
denied the motion for reconsideration, and the Sientra Defendants
and the Underwriter Defendants each filed an answer to the
consolidated amended complaint.

On October 28, November 5, and November 19, 2015, three lawsuits
styled as class actions of the Company's stockholders were filed
in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo.
The lawsuits name the Company, certain of our officers and
directors, and the underwriters associated with our follow-on
public offering that closed on September 23, 2015 as defendants.
The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
he Securities Act in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements in our offering documents associated with
the follow-on offering concerning our business, operations, and
prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages and an award of reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

On December 4, 2015, defendants removed all three lawsuits to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  On December 15 and December 16, 2015, plaintiffs
filed motions to remand the lawsuits back to San Mateo Superior
Court, or Motions to Remand.  On January 19, 2016, defendants
filed their opposition to the Motions to Remand, and plaintiffs
filed their reply in support of the Motions to Remand on January
26, 2016.

On May 20, 2016, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California granted plaintiffs' Motions to Remand, and
the San Mateo Superior Court received the remanded cases on May
27, 2016.  On July 19, 2016, the San Mateo Superior Court
consolidated the three lawsuits.  On August 2, 2016, plaintiffs
filed their consolidated complaint. On August 5, 2016, defendants
filed a motion to stay all proceedings in favor of the class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

On September 13, 2016, the parties to the actions pending in the
San Mateo Superior Court and the United States District Court for
the Central District of California signed a memorandum of
understanding that sets forth the material deal points of a
settlement that covers both actions and includes class-wide
relief. On September 13, 2016, and September 20, 2016,
respectively, the parties filed notices of settlement in both
courts. On September 22, 2016, the United States District Court
for the Central District of California stayed that action pending
the court's approval of a settlement. On September 23, 2016, the
San Mateo Superior Court stayed that action as well as pending the
court's approval of a settlement.

On December 20, 2016, the plaintiffs in the federal court action
filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement.  On January 23, 2017, the United States District Court
for the Central District of California preliminarily approved the
settlement. A final approval hearing in that court was scheduled
for May 22, 2017.

On January 5, 2017, the plaintiffs in the state court action also
filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement.  On February 7, 2017, the San Mateo Superior Court
preliminarily approved the settlement.  A final approval hearing
in that court was scheduled for May 31, 2017.

On April 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in the federal court action and
the state court action each filed their motion for final approval
of the class action settlement, approval of the proposed plan of
allocation, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The
settlement is contingent upon final approval by both the San Mateo
Superior Court and the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

The Company said, "As a result of these developments, we
determined that a probable loss had been incurred and we
recognized a net charge to earnings of approximately $1.6 million
for the year ended December 31, 2016 within general and
administrative expense which was comprised of the loss contingency
of approximately $10.9 million, net of expected insurance proceeds
of approximately $9.4 million."

"In the first quarter of 2017, we received $9.3 million in
insurance proceeds and paid the $10.9 million loss contingency.
The remaining insurance proceeds receivable is classified as
"insurance recovery receivable" on the accompanying condensed
balance sheets. While it is possible that the Company may incur a
loss greater than the amounts recognized in the accompanying
financial statements, the Company is unable to determine a range
of possible losses greater than the amount recognized."

Additional information is available at:

           http://www.sientrashareholderlitigation.com/

Sientra is a medical aesthetics company committed to making a
difference in patients' lives by enhancing their body image,
growing their self-esteem and restoring their confidence.


SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Securities Action in New York Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Oncology, Inc. is defending against a securities action in
New York, 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 November 9, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company and certain of its
executive officers. The lawsuit was brought by purported
stockholders of the company seeking to represent a class
consisting of stockholders who purchased stock between July 15,
2015 and June 6, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
the lawsuit vigorously. Due to the early stage of the litigation,
we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable
to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if
any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome.

Sierra Oncology, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a clinical stage
drug development company advancing next generation DNA Damage
Response (DDR) therapeutics for the treatment of patients with
cancer. Sierra Oncology's lead drug candidate is SRA737, a potent,
highly selective, orally bioavailable small molecule inhibitor of
Checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1), a key regulator of important cell
cycle checkpoints and central mediator of the DDR network. Sierra
Oncology is also advancing SRA141, a potent, selective and orally
bioavailable small molecule inhibitor of cell division cycle 7
kinase (Cdc7) undergoing preclinical development.


SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Securities Action in California Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Oncology, Inc. is defending against a securities action in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Mateo, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

The company said, "On November 18, 2016, a purported securities
class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Mateo against us, certain of
our executive officers and directors, and the underwriters for our
initial public offering of our common stock."

"On February 9, 2017, a substantially identical putative class
action suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo asserting the same claims
on behalf of the same putative class. The lawsuits were brought by
purported stockholders of our company seeking to represent a class
consisting of stockholders who purchased stock pursuant to and/or
traceable to our Registration Statement on Form S-1. The lawsuits
assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seek unspecified damages and other relief.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
the lawsuits vigorously. It is possible that additional similar
lawsuits could be filed. Due to the early stage of the litigation,
we are unable to predict the outcome of these cases and are unable
to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if
any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome."

Sierra Oncology, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a clinical stage
drug development company advancing next generation DNA Damage
Response (DDR) therapeutics for the treatment of patients with
cancer. Sierra Oncology's lead drug candidate is SRA737, a potent,
highly selective, orally bioavailable small molecule inhibitor of
Checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1), a key regulator of important cell
cycle checkpoints and central mediator of the DDR network. Sierra
Oncology is also advancing SRA141, a potent, selective and orally
bioavailable small molecule inhibitor of cell division cycle 7
kinase (Cdc7) undergoing preclinical development.


SLATER & GORDON: Recapitalization Hinges on Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that Slater and Gordon
boss Andrew Grech has quit and the board of the beseiged law firm
will be cleaned out under a debt restructuring deal that passes
almost full ownership of the company to its lenders.

Lenders holding three quarters of Slater and Gordon's debt, led by
private equity firm Anchorage Capital, will own 95 per cent of the
company's shares under the recapitalisation deal announced on June
29.

After months of negotiations with lenders, the current board has
unanimously supported the deal that will oust them, and have
pledged to vote all shares they control in support of the new
arrangement.

The recapitalisation deal is contingent on shareholder approval
and the settlement of a class action brought by rival law firm,
Maurice Blackburn, representing thousands of shareholders.

Also among conditions for approval are an independent expert
finding the law firm will remain solvent and that the deal is
either "fair and reasonable" or "not fair but reasonable" to
shareholders.

"The recapitalisation is intended to provide the Company with a
sustainable level of senior secured debt and a stable platform for
its future operations in both Australia and the UK," the company
said in a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange.

The lenders will set up loan facilities worth $35 million, with
some existing debt placed in a $30 million facility and a new, $5
million facility established.

Existing shareholders will control just five per cent of the
company after the recapitalisation, which will later be diluted to
four per cent by the issue of new shares to lenders in the $5
million facility.

Managing director Mr Grech has quit his role immediately but will
remain on the board, with all directors to resign as new board
members are appointed.

Chief executive Hayden Stephens will continue to lead the company
in Australia, while Ken Fowlie will remain in his position as UK
CEO.

Slater and Gordon said it would continue mediation proceedings for
the Maurice Blackburn-led class action and provide an update in
coming days.

Maurice Blackburn brought the class action in October, 2016,
representing thousands of Slater and Gordon shareholders making
claims over disclosure of financial information between March 2015
and February 2016.

ACA Lawyers is also investigating a potential class action, while
Slater and Gordon is facing separate legal action brought against
it by organisation Babscay, which is acting on behalf of
shareholders who acquired an interest in Slater and Gordon shares
between August 24, 2012, and November 19, 2015.

Slater and Gordon's market value has fallen from $2.8 billion in
April 2015, to less than $31 million after a disastrous $1.2
billion acquisition of Quindell's professional services division
in the UK. [GN]


SLATER & GORDON: Judge Has Courtroom in Stitches Over Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Walsh, writing for Financial Review, reports that the
ongoing Slater + Gordon narrative has not tempered the fervour for
class action claims.

As Andrew Grech confirmed he would step down from leadership --
after 17 years at the wheel -- law firm Gadens issued its long-
threatened class action claim on behalf of shareholders against
Surfstitch Group and ex-head Justin Cameron, backed by funder
International Litigation Partners.

Filed in the Supreme Court of NSW and citing the fall in share
price from "a peak of $2.13 to roughly 11 cents", the claim
overlaps that brought by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan.

The embattled surfwear company said in an ASX announcement on June
29 it was considering whether the Gadens claim was "an abuse of
process and liable to be struck out", and it continued to "explore
settlement" with the Quinn claim, led by former Maurice Blackburn
partner Damian Scattini.

Gadens had hinted at a possible claim in June 2016, but Quinn,
backed by Vannin Capital, beat it to the punch -- filing in
Queensland in May, among the first in the state's new class
actions regime. The State of Origin-esque battle for claimants
will be led on the Gadens side by Melbourne-based partner Glenn
McGowan, QC (who was incidentally elected in April as president of
the Australian Institute for Commercial Arbitration; his
negotiation skills should come in handy given no shareholder class
action has ever made it to judgment).

Mafia Don... or just a solicitor

In a court order, Queensland Supreme Court judge Peter Applegarth
has forced Gadens to let group members know about the Quinn claim.
In a note to members the firm says they can contact Scattini and
Gadens' Patrick Walsh for information to allow them to "compare
the different funding arrangements". Gadens had to foot the legal
bill for the benefit of the tussle before the judge on the issue.

In the hearing on June 19, before Gadens filed proceedings,
Justice Applegarth neatly expressed why he was minded to order
them to flag the Quinn matter with claimants: he didn't want
anyone to be misled.

"My concern is that group members -- or potential group members --
in this proceeding are not misled ... and if I'm concerned about
that, I would, for similar reasons, be concerned about them
receiving incomplete or misleading information from anyone,
whether it was a solicitor or a Mafia Don, wouldn't I?"

To which Gadens' counsel Lachlan Armstrong, QC, could only
respond: "Yes, your honour."

To date, about $1.3 billion in settlements have been reached in
shareholder class actions claims, from which healthy legal fees
are carved. Principles of proportionality, to ensure they are fair
and reasonable, are applied by the court.

So how much does that equate to? For Macpherson + Kelley Lawyers
this month, after acting in the claim against Willmott Forests
after the collapse of its managed investment schemes, it was
$8.562 million. Despite an initial "fair degree of scepticism",
Federal Court judge Bernard Murphy accepted the position; the
second stab at a settlement after rejecting the first.

To be fair, class action matters seem to involve quite a bit of
effort.

Jones Day partner John Emmerig, defending the Bank of Queensland
in a class action brought over a failed scheme peddled by
financial planner Bradley Sherwin, must dig through "a database
containing over one million electronic documents, and 550 boxes of
documents" produced by the plaintiffs; as set out in a ruling on
security for costs by Federal Court judge David Yates which itself
ran to 47 pages and referred to the millions likely generated in
fees.

In return, the bank has generated "in the order of 868 gigabytes
of primary electronic records . . . . comprising an estimated 14
million" documents.

On the question of costs, elsewhere Fairfax Media's Michaela
Whitbourn, astutely watching the NSW Supreme Court battle between
former Auburn deputy mayor property developer Salim Mehajer and
creditors, tweeted this observation: "'How much are we charging
for staples?' Supreme Court justice Paul Brereton quips when brief
hands up unstapled documents. '$9' he adds."

Vale Gordon Cooper

Now, to another Don. The tax world has lost a titan, after Gordon
Cooper -- practitioner, teacher, author, and ultimate boffin among
boffins who was awarded an AM for services to the profession in
2003 -- passed away.

Known for his charisma, whimsy and humility -- he would refer to
himself and other former presidents of the Tax Institute (he held
the title in 1999-2000) as "feather dusters" ("rooster one day,
feather duster the next") -- he has left behind a saddened but
grateful community.

In a heartfelt vale, KPMG partner Lachlan Wolfers championed his
first mentor.

"Gordon will always be the most extraordinary tax professional I
have ever worked with -- a mad professor type with an unparalleled
breadth and depth of tax knowledge and commercial acumen, a true
gentleman, and ethical to a fault."

The kind of fault that is in sore demand.

Bolt-on art

While top Sydney lawyers slept a la concrete for the Vinnies CEO
Sleepout, including NSW Bar Association president Arthur Moses,
SC, who is tantalising close to his $22,000 fundraising target,
the bench and bar tried to outbid one other to secure Indigenous
art in the 3rd annual Environmental Defenders Office (NT) auction
fundraiser.

Among those with winning bids for one of the 127 pieces were
Federal Court judge Melissa Perry, NSW Supreme Court justice
Elizabeth Fullerton (four pieces) and Phillip Boulten, SC (also
securing four). In all, the auction raised $146,384, including
around $65,000 for the office. Susan Wanji Wanji's piece received
the highest winning bid, of $13,000.

Boulten has actively participated in previous art auctions. He
admitted to Hearsay his interest in contemporary art leaves him
with more pictures than wall space. [GN]


SPOKANE, WA: Faces Class Action for Overcharging Customers
----------------------------------------------------------
Spokesman reported that a $30 million class-action lawsuit filed
on June 29 claims the city of Spokane has for years overcharged
thousands of water customers who live outside city limits.

The city, meanwhile, maintains that its higher rates for out-of-
city water consumption are not only legal but also common across
the state.

The class action is the second lawsuit to emerge from a long-
standing dispute between the city and Fairways Golf Course on the
West Plains, which recently had its water shut off over an
outstanding bill of $40,740. A judge in early June ordered the
city to restore water service to the golf course, which claims it
was overcharged despite meeting conservation targets.

Attorney Bob Dunn, Esq. -- bdunn@dunnandblack.com -- of Dunn &
Black, PS is representing both the golf course and the plaintiffs
in the class action. The lead plaintiffs in the class action are
Fairways club professional Kris Kallem and two neighbors of the
course, John Durgan and Tawndi Sargent. Durgan's family managed
the course for 15 years before the current owner took over.

Spokane currently has about 5,300 out-of-city water customers. For
residential customers, out-of-city rates are 50 percent higher.
Commercial rates are more complex but also about 50 percent
higher.

"For a long time the city has been getting half a point more for
each unit we use," said Durgan, who's lived near the golf course
for nearly two decades.

In his complaint, Dunn calls those higher rates "discriminatory,"
"excessive" and "arbitrary and capricious." He also contends they
amount to a "surcharge." And in an interview, he said the class
action could benefit up to 6,000 water customers, including some
who have moved from the city's service area.

City spokeswoman Marlene Feist provided a written statement
defending the rate disparity.

"The city's citizens rightfully benefit from their long-term
investment with inside-city rates," the statement says. "State law
and court decisions support this approach, which has been in place
in the city for more than 50 years and in cities around the state
including Tacoma, Seattle and Kennewick. It would be unfair to ask
city residents to pay more now to accommodate lower rates for
outside developments."

The cost of pumping water generally increases with the distance it
must travel. Dunn notes in both lawsuits that the Fairways Golf
Course and surrounding neighborhood, developed by Robert "Buster"
Heitman, were responsible for installing their own pipes and
infrastructure.

Dunn also has asserted that some out-of-city customers have been
improperly billed at double the rate of city residents. But Feist
wrote in an email that there is no "sliding scale" for rates based
on distance from the city.

"However, in all cases, if you're using more water than your
neighbor, your bill would be larger," she wrote. [GN]


SQUARETRADE: Moves to Compel Arbitration in Protection Plans Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Revak, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that tech company
SquareTrade recently moved to compel arbitration in a lawsuit
claiming the company offered fraudulent protection plans to
consumers on Amazon.

The motion, filed May 18, cites the terms and conditions that
consumers must consent to before purchasing a protection plan,
which it claims forces litigants into arbitration and prohibit
class action lawsuits.

"The terms and conditions for the plan plaintiff purchased on
Sept. 11, 2014 required arbitration of any dispute thereunder, and
a waiver of the ability to bring claims as a class representative
or participate in a class action against Square Trade," the motion
said.

The company says the plaintiff made six additional purchases over
the next 15 months before bringing the lawsuit. Additionally,
plaintiff was allotted a 30-day period to cancel the protection
plan free of charge, but refrained from doing so and was emailed a
link to the terms and conditions.

Furthermore, the company argues that even if there is a dispute
over the legitimacy of an arbitration clause, under the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA) this dispute must be resolved before an
arbitrator and not before a court.

"Under the FAA, an agreement to arbitrate under the rules of a
particular provider whose rules so provide requires the arbitrator
-- and not a court faced with the motion to compel arbitration --
to determine questions of arbitrability. . . . " the motion said.

In addition to arbitration, the motion also demanded that the
court "order the plaintiff's claims be arbitrated on an individual
and not a class wide basis; and . . . . stay the instant
litigation in favor of arbitration."

The claim, brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, was initially filed in December 2016 after
plaintiff Adam Starke alleged that the company marketed its
protection plans in a misleading fashion on Amazon.com.

Starke claims that he suffered financial damage upon purchasing a
plan that turned out to be different and less generous then what
was advertised, according to Legal Newsline.

He also claims that SquareTrade "sells protection plans for
products on Amazon.com that are ineligible for coverage." [GN]


SSM HOME: Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Regan, writing for Home Health Care News, reports that a
lawsuit claiming that Midwestern home health care provider SSM
Health at Home, formerly known as SSM Home Care, owes some of its
caregivers unpaid overtime wages can move forward as a class
action case, a district judge ruled.  SSM Health at Home's parent
company, SSM Health, is a health care system based in St. Louis
that owns 18 hospitals, two nursing homes, a physician network and
medical services such as home health and hospice. The system
employs more than 33,000 people.

Plaintiff Christina Mayberry alleged in a 2015 suit that she and
other hourly home health care workers employed by SSM in Missouri,
Illinois and Oklahoma worked "off the clock" without pay.  Ms.
Mayberry is seeking to recover those unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

Judge Carol Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri approved the class action status on May 30,
according to court documents. Under the ruling, the case can
include "all current and former hourly-paid home health care
workers employed at any time within the last three years at
defendant's St. Louis and St. Louis West branch locations."

The St. Louis Record, a Missouri legal publication, first reported
on the lawsuit.

Ms. Mayberry -- along with plaintiffs Cleo Mayfield, Janice
Tainter and Rhonda McKinnon -- claimed that SSM paid them hourly
as licensed practical nurses but did not compensate them for
essential duties before and after their shifts.

The plaintiffs routinely filled out charts and completed patient
reports at home and off-the-clock, the lawsuit alleges.  The
plaintiffs also submitted paperwork corroborating their claims,
according to the court document.

A representative for SSM did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.

Many home health workers have pursued class action cases against
their employers since overtime and minimum wage coverage
protections went into effect in 2015.

In April, a band of home health aides sought class certification
in a similar unpaid labor case against Centegra Health System, a
network of four hospitals, physician care locations and specialty
services providers, including home health, based in Crystal Lake,
Illinois.

And employees at Humana in February sought class certification in
Connecticut federal court on a claim they were wrongfully shorted
overtime pay while working for one of the company's subsidiaries.
Humana opposed the certification in that case, arguing the
employees' case was built, in part, with flawed factual
assumptions. [GN]


STAPLES ENERGY: Faces "Price" Class Suit in California Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Christina Price, Jorge Casas and all others
similarly situated and the general public v. Staples Energy
Services LLC and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 17CV002262 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Monterey Cty., June 22, 2017), is brought against the
Defendant in the California Superior Court.

The case type is stated as other employment unlimited.

Staples Energy designs and implements innovative savings solutions
in the fields of energy and environmental design.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank J. Zeccola, Esq.
          ILG LEGAL OFFICE, PC
          555 California Street, Suite 4925
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (888) 969-7404
          E-mail: Fzeccola@ilglegal.com


STEPTOE & JOHNSON: Discriminates Against Women, "Houck" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JI-IN HOUCK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, Case No. 2:17-cv-04595-ODW-AFM
(C.D. Cal., June 22, 2017), seeks all legal and equitable relief
available pursuant to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the California
Fair Pay Act, the California Labor Code and the California
Business & Professions Code.

Despite paying lip-service to diversity in its workforce, and even
counseling the firm's own clients on policies to avoid pay
discrimination, Steptoe subjects its female attorneys to unequal
pay, the Plaintiff alleges.  She seeks to remedy this disparity,
at least at Steptoe.  She, therefore, brings the lawsuit in her
individual capacity and on behalf of similarly-situated women
nationwide, to address the systemic gender pay discrimination at
Steptoe.

Steptoe & Johnson LLP, a law firm, employs nearly 500 attorneys in
offices across the country and around the world.  The Firm was
founded more than a century ago by Phillip Steptoe, and
headquartered in Washington, D.C., since 1945.

Ms. Houck is a resident of Northridge, in the County of Los
Angeles, California.  She worked at Steptoe's office in Century
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori E. Andrus, Esq.
          Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
          Paul Laprairie, Esq.
          ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
          155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 986-1400
          Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
          E-mail: lori@andrusanderson.com
                  jennie@andrusanderson.com
                  paul.laprairie@andrusanderson.com


SUGAR FOODS: Removes "Lara" Suit From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit entitled Ricardo Lara v. Sugar
Foods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC659797, was removed on June
22, 2017, from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-04590-SVW-RAO
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.[BN]

Plaintiff Ricardo Lara, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Paul Keith Haines, Esq.
          Andrew John Rowbotham, Esq.
          Fletcher W.H. Schmidt, Esq.
          Stephanie Alexis Kierig, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP APC
          2274 East Maple Avenue
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  skierig@haineslawgroup.com

Defendant Sugar Foods Corporation, a New York Corporation, is
represented by:

          Kevin Dennis Sullivan, Esq.
          Michael S. Kun, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER AND GREEN PC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-8861
          Facsimile: (310) 553-2165
          E-mail: ksullivan@ebglaw.com
                  mkun@ebglaw.com


SURFSTITCH GROUP: Provides Updates on Gadens Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Surfstitch Group Ltd. provided updates on
Gadens class action.

The Gadens claim would cover same factual allegations and
potential class members as class action proceedings currently on
foot in supreme court.

Surfstitch is considering whether Gadens claim against co is an
abuse of process and liable to be struck out

The company says the Gadens claim also names Justin Cameron as a
defendant.

It continues to explore settlement in respect of the Quinn Emanuel
claim. [GN]


TELE PAY USA: Hit With Employee Class Action Over Unfair Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News, reports that a Florida
phone-sex operator filed a class-action lawsuit against Tele Pay
USA, claiming it pays its employees well below the national
minimum wage while making hundreds of dollars per hour from their
work.

Anne Cannon of Orlando, Fla., filed a lawsuit on June 27 against
Glendale-based Tele Pay USA in Los Angeles federal court, alleging
failure to compensate off-the-clock work, unpaid overtime and
failure to pay minimum wage.

Cannon, who says she has worked for the company since 2008, sued
on behalf of its primarily female workforce.

The complaint, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, claims
that Tele Pay pays its workers at a rate that is as low as $4.20
per hour.

Though the company offers incentives to earn more, Cannon says
Tele Pay includes in her average call length prank calls, dropped
calls and technical errors to pay employees wages that are below
the national minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

Cannon claims Tele Pay makes it almost impossible for employees to
track their time and account accurately for how long they have
worked.

Workers are allegedly cajoled by a supervisor named "Don" to keep
customers on the line for as long as possible, and the company
demands that its workers answer calls on the first ring and
conducts daily tests to make sure the employees are complying,
Cannon claims.

She alleges the company also spams its workers in emails with
subject lines like: "Calls Coming in like Crazy! Log-In Now!"

"Women are a core part of both the national and global economy.
Unfortunately, the abuses and financial exploitation they
experience often remain invisible," the 13-page complaint states.
"This is especially true for workers in female-dominated sectors
of the economy such as sex talk workers. They are hidden from the
public eye."

The lawsuit says that Tele Pay calls itself a booking agent for
actors looking to provide "entertainment services" to the company.

"Tele Pay's purported service is to 'negotiate and book
engagements' for the actors, the engagement being a telephone call
between the customer seeking telephone sex-talk services and the
actors, the call being initiated by the customer in response to
defendants' advertisements," the lawsuit states.

In reality, Tele Pay does no negotiations and does not book work,
Cannon says. The so-called engagement is just a sexually explicit
call between the customer and phone sex operators, according to
the complaint.

Cannon says she works from home in Florida where the minimum wage
is $8.10 per hour, using a landline telephone.

The company requires her to stay home and within reach of her
computer so that she can field dozens of calls each week, she
says.

Tele Pay pays Cannon 10 cents per minute when her calls average
about six minutes long, according to the lawsuit.

But calls are often less than six minutes in duration, dropping
her hourly income to 7 cents per minute -- which means she
receives $6 per hour at the high end but only $4.20 an hour on the
low end, the complaint states.

Tele Pay customers are charged $5 per minute, meaning the company
can make up to $300 per hour based on one employee's work, Cannon
claims.

"Plaintiff's average hourly rate is below $6.00. The minimum wage
for the state of Florida, the state in which she works, is $8.10
per hour. Anywhere in the nation, the average amount received by
Ms. Cannon is far below the allowed national or state minimum
wage," the lawsuit states.

Cannon is represented by Brian Mahany,Esq. of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.

Tele Pay USA could not be reached for comment. [GN]


TOM'S MARINE: Hit With Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
painter and sand blaster has filed a class-action lawsuit against
his former Lafitte employer over allegations that he was not paid
at the correct rate for overtime work.

Bismark Mairena-Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated filed a complaint on June 14 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Tom's
Marine & Salvage LLC alleging that the shipyard operator violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that while
working for the defendant from approximately October 2015 until
February, plaintiff was not paid one-and-a-half times his regular
hourly rate for all hours worked over of 40 hours a workweek. The
plaintiff holds Tom's Marine & Salvage LLC responsible because the
defendant allegedly willfully violated plaintiff's rights by
recklessly disregarding the overtime provisions of the FLSA.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order
certifying this case as a collective action, award for all unpaid
wages, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and
all other equitable relief as the court deems equitable. He is
represented by Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. --
costaleslawoffice@gmail.com -- William H. Beaumont, Esq. --
whbeaumont@gmail.com -- and Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. --
emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com -- of Beaumont Costales LLC in
New Orleans.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana case
number 2:17-cv-05823 [GN]


TOYOTA MOTOR: Hope Appeals Decision in "Warner" Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Cemil Hope filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Brian Warner, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02171-FMO-FFM, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Brian Warner, et al. v. Toyota
Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 17-55890, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 19, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on October 17, 2017;

   -- Appellant Cemil Hope's opening brief is due on November 27,
      2017;

   -- Appellees Ryan Burns, Dale Franquet, James Fuller, James
      Good, Kenneth MacLeod, Michael Meade, Toyota Motor Sales,
      U.S.A., Inc., Brian Warner and Michael Watson's answering
      brief is due on December 27, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Objector-Appellant CEMIL HOPE is represented by:

          Bradley David Salter, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BRADLEY D. SALTER
          24 Malialani Place
          Lahaina, HI 96761
          Telephone: (808) 298-7873

Plaintiffs-Appellees BRIAN WARNER, KENNETH MACLEOD, MICHAEL MEADE,
MICHAEL WATSON, JAMES FULLER, DALE FRANQUET, RYAN BURNS and JAMES
GOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One N. LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Paula R. Brown, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          701 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  pbrown@bholaw.com

Defendant-Appellee TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California
corporation, is represented by:

          Galen D. Bellamy, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 Seventeenth Street, Suite # 4500
          Denver, CO 80202-5647
          Telephone: (303) 244-1800
          Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
          E-mail: bellamy@wtotrial.com

               - and -

          Raymond A. Cardozo, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 Second Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
          E-mail: rcardozo@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          John Peter Hooper, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 205-6125
          Facsimile: (212) 521-5450
          E-mail: jhooper@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Peter W. Herzog, Jr., Esq.
          HERZOG CREBS LLP
          100 N. Broadway, 14th Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63102-2728
          Telephone: (314) 231-6700
          Facsimile: (314) 231-4656
          E-mail: pwh@herzogcrebs.com

               - and -

          Esther K. Ro, Esq.
          David L. Schrader, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-7434
          Facsimile: (213) 312-2501
          E-mail: ero@morganlewis.com
                  david.schrader@morganlewis.com


TRANSPORT EXPRESS: Faces "Cabuyales" Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Cabuyales, and on behalf of all unamed plaintiffs similarly
situated v. TRANSPORT EXPRESS INC., doing business as Port
Logistics Group; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
BC665998 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 22, 2017),
alleges wage and hour violations arising out of the Defendant's
alleged misclassification of employees, failure to pay wages and
failure to provide meal and rest periods, among other violations.

Transport Express Inc., doing business as Port Logistics Group,
and the Doe Defendants are doing business in Los Angeles County,
California.  The Defendants provide various shipping services
throughout California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alvin M. Gomez, Esq.
          Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
          GOMEZ LAW GROUP
          2725 Jefferson Street, Suite 7
          Carlsbad, CA 92008
          Telephone: (858) 552-0000
          Facsimile: (760) 720-5217
          E-mail: alvingomez@thegomezlawgroup.com



U.S. RENAL: "Whitaker" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DAVID WHITAKER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S.
RENAL CARE, INC., and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02661-R (GJSx) (C.D. Cal.), David
Whitaker will move the Court on August 7, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., for
an order granting a class certification.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5ua5BAw4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Ali S. Carlsen, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379 6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379 6251


UNITED STATES: Judge OK's Former SMU Inmate's Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda August, writing for Daily Item, reports that a U.S.
magistrate judge is recommending a lawsuit filed by a former U.S.
Penitentiary at Lewisburg inmate alleging dangerous conditions be
allowed to proceed as a class-action suit.

The report and recommendation released by U.S. Magistrate Judge
Martin C. Carlson grants federal inmate Sebastian Richardson the
right to represent all current and future inmates held at the
prison's Special Management Unit (SMU) in his lawsuit that claims
inmates are being held in unsafe conditions. The suit alleges
inmates who refuse to bunk with hostile cellmates are placed in
hard restraints and staff does not intervene when violence erupts
between inmates in cells and recreation cages.

Richardson, who was moved to another federal prison after he filed
the suit in 2011, claimed he was held in hard restraints for one
month when he refused to accept a cellmate out of fear for his own
safety. He is represented by the Pennsylvania Institutional Law
Project in Philadelphia.

Presiding over the lawsuit is U.S. Middle District Senior Judge
William Nealon, who denied in 2013 the request to seek class
action because Richardson was no longer an inmate at Lewisburg and
the was suit too broad.

In his report released on June 26, Carlson said "the prudent...
path would be to grant the motion for class certification," adding
"nothing in this report and recommendation should be construed as
addressing in any fashion the ultimate merits of any putative
class claims. That task must await another day."

David Sprout, a paralegal with the inmate advocacy group, The
Lewisburg Project, said the recommendation is a positive
development in the case.

"It's procedural, but it's what we wanted," he said of the class
certification.

Nealon does not have to accept the recommendation, but if he does,
the defense may file an objection. [GN]


UNITED PARCEL: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Crosby, writing for Law360, reports that the United
Parcel Service was slapped with a proposed class action in Georgia
federal court on June 28 by consumers alleging the mail carrier
called to collect on a debt even after it was told to stop.

Lead plaintiff Ana Cervantes says that years after she scrapped
plans to open a business and closed her account with UPS, she
began to receive prerecorded robocalls about the account, despite
revoking her consent to be called.

The account, which was "wrongfully" referred to a collections
agency, listed her cellphone number, although Cervantes says she
never gave the Georgia-based company permission to call her in the
first place.

"[UPS'] call forces [Cervantes] and class members to live without
the utility of plaintiff's cell phone by forcing her to silence
her cell phone and/or block incoming numbers," the complaint
states.

At the time Cervantes, who lives in Las Vegas, was mulling opening
a distribution business in Nevada she opened a business account
with UPS in 2012, according to the complaint.

Sometime thereafter she stopped those plans and closed her UPS
account. Years later, between October 2015 and May 2016, Cervantes
says she received seven calls from an automatic dialing system,
despite revoking her consent to be called, in alleged violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Cervantes says the calls incurred cell phone charges and lost
time. She seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who
received illegal robocalls from UPS in the past four years, but
did not speculate as to the class size.

Cervantes is asking the court for an injunction against the calls
and for statutory damages.

Counsel for Cervantes did not return a request for comment on June
29.

UPS spokeswoman Susan Rosenberg said on June 29 the company was
aware of the case and "will vigorously defend against the
allegations."

Counsel information for UPS was not immediately known.

Cervantes is represented by Matthew Berry,Esq. and Adam Klein,Esq.
of Berry & Associates PC.

The case is Cervantes vs. United Parcel Service of America, Inc.,
case number 1:17-cv-02410 in U.S. District Court for Northern
Georgia. [GN]


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Plaintiff Drops Weight Loss Supplement Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy and Matthew Guarnaccia, writing for Law360, report
that a California woman who launched a proposed class action
against Vitamin Shoppe Inc. in May has dropped her claims that the
company sold ineffective weight loss supplements that were
misleadingly labeled, her lawyers said on June 26.

In a one-sentence notice, Andrea Nathan, who filed her complaint
on May 4, said she was voluntarily dismissing her individual and
class claims without prejudice, but did not elaborate on the
reason behind the decision.

Ms. Nathan could not immediately be reached for comment on June 27
and Vitamin Shoppe declined comment.

The complaint focused on Vitamin Shoppe's garcinia cambogia
extract product, which the company says helps people manage their
weight and suppress their appetites.  Ms. Nathan, however, said
that studies have shown that the supplement isn't any more
effective than a placebo.  She also said that research into the
product's active ingredients -- hydroxycitric acid and chromium --
reached the same conclusion and that the product's labeling is
misleading.

She backed up her allegations with six studies she said proved
that garcinia cambogia, hydroxycitric acid and chromium are
ineffective as weight-loss or appetite-control supplements.  One
1998 study, for example, observed no "selective fat-mobilizing
effects" linked to the acid and reached a similar conclusion for
garcinia cambogia as a whole, she said.

Studies published by the Journal of Obesity the following year and
in 2001 said the same, Ms. Nathan said.  The most recent finding
she cited was a 2011 study in Nutrition Journal, which said the
supplement "failed to promote weight loss" or significantly change
body fat percentage.

As for chromium, at least two studies from 1996 and 2001 found
that it had no effect on weight loss, muscle gain or appetite
suppression, Ms. Nathan said.

Ms. Nathan, a San Diego resident, said she bought a 180-count
bottle of garcinia cambogia in February based on the benefits
touted on its label.  She said she wouldn't have purchased the
product if she'd known the label was misleading.

Prior to dropping her claims, she sought to represent a class of
California consumers who bought the allegedly misleading product.
She also wanted Vitamin Shoppe to pay restitution to affected
class members and run a "corrective advertising campaign."  She
further sought a court order requiring the company to destroy all
misleading advertising materials and product labels and to conduct
a recall campaign.

Ms. Nathan is represented by Paul K. Joseph of The Law Office of
Paul K. Joseph PC.

Vitamin Shoppe is represented by Amy B. Alderfer --
aalderfer@cozen.com -- and Brett Taylor -- btaylor@cozen.com -- of
Cozen O'Connor.

The case is Nathan v. Vitamin Shoppe Inc., case number 3:17-cv-
00948, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California. [GN]


WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: Baker Hostetler Discusses Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory V. Mersol, Esq., of Baker & Hostetler LLP, in an article
for Lexology, wrote that it's unusual to see an employment class
action based on breach of contract by nonunionized employees.  A
recent case from the District of Columbia involving the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), reflects why, and
highlights problems that occur when employees try to bring class-
wide claims based on the employer's policy manuals.

First, some background.  The transit system in Washington, D.C.,
has drawn a great deal of unfavorable publicity over its expense,
safety issues, frequent service interruptions and other issues.
Despite ridership declines in the wake of several highly
publicized safety issues and service problems, the Metro has
approximately 12,500 employees, over 1,000 of whom make over
$100,000 in base pay.  The average pay for all Metro employees is
$84,000 plus generous fringe benefits costing nearly $40,000 more.
Most of these employees are unionized and WMATA pays over $100
million per year in overtime costs.  So how do the supervisors
fare?

In Dawson v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Civil
Action No. 15-2092 (RBW) (D.D.C. June 23, 2017), the plaintiffs
were supervisors for WMATA.  They contended that WMATA's published
salary policies promised that supervisors would make at least 5
percent more than their highest paid direct reports.  They sought
to represent a class of supervisors (including themselves) they
claim were underpaid pursuant to this policy.

While a class action, the court undertook the analysis one might
expect in an individual handbook case.  It examined the terms of
the policy, much as a court would in an individual case based on
an employee handbook, to determine whether they would constitute
an enforceable contract.  It found that the policy encouraged the
5 percent differential as part of its compensation philosophy and
also to avoid salary compression.  Significantly, however, the
policy also made salary adjustments "subject to budgetary
conditions" and gave WMATA's general manager "discretion to
modify, change, or expand the salary structure" and to limit or
cap salary adjustments if in WMATA's best interests.  Faced with
such language, the court unsurprisingly found that the policy did
not constitute a contract and granted summary judgment in the
employer's favor.

The decision in Dawson is demonstrative of the problems
nonunionized employees face in asserting class-wide breach of
contract claims.  Years ago, in Sprague v. General Motors Corp.,
133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1998) (en banc), the Sixth Circuit
similarly rejected class-wide claims for retiree medical benefits
by a class of salaried employees, even though it has freely found
for unionized employees asserting similar claims involving a
collective bargaining agreement.  With most employers disclaiming
handbooks and reserving discretion in their policy manuals, it is
difficult for nonunion employees to establish the threshold
agreement they need to assert a claim.

The bottom line: Nonunion employees seeking to assert class action
breach of contract claims may face fatal obstacles on the
substantive merits of their claims. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Meiners Appeals D. Minn. Judgment to Eighth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John Meiners filed an appeal from a court order and
judgment, both dated May 26, 2017, in his lawsuit titled John
Meiners v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-03981-
DSD, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota -
Minneapolis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 2,
2017, Judge David S. Doty dismissed the case with prejudice.  The
lawsuit alleges (i) breach of the duties of loyalty and prudence
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104 against the Benefit Committee; (ii)
breach of co-fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. Section 1105 against
the Human Resources Committee, Hardison, and Thornton; and (iii)
knowing participation in a breach of fiduciary duty under 29
U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3).

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act dispute arises out of
John Meiners' participation in Wells Fargo's 401(k) retirement
plan (Plan).  The Plan is a defined-contribution plan in which
employees may invest a certain percentage of their earnings on a
pre-tax basis.  During the class period, the Plan offered 26 to 27
investment options.  Twelve of the options are Wells Fargo Dow
Jones Target Date Funds, which are proprietary funds managed by a
Wells Fargo subsidiary.

Mr. Meiners, on behalf of a putative class, alleges that these
funds both underperformed comparable Vanguard funds and were more
expensive than comparable Vanguard and Fidelity funds.  He claims
that by continuing to keep these funds in the Plan, Wells Fargo
breached its fiduciary duties.  Further, Wells Fargo, in an effort
to generate fees and seed the underperforming funds, allegedly
breached its fiduciary duties by designating the Wells Fargo funds
as the default for participants who enrolled in the Plan but did
not select an investment option.

The appellate case is captioned as John Meiners v. Wells Fargo &
Company, et al., Case No. 17-2397, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before August 2, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on August 14, 2017;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT of John Meiners is due on August 14, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant;

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant John Meiners, on behalf of a class of all
persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the Wells Fargo &
Company 401(k) Plan, is represented by:

          Richard M. Elias, Esq.
          Greg Gutzler, Esq.
          Tamara M. Spicer, Esq.
          ELIAS GUTZLER SPICER LLC
          130 S. Bemiston Avenue, Suite 302
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 637-6350
          E-mail: relias@egslitigation.com
                  ggutzler@egslitigation.com
                  tspicer@egslitigation.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey A. Graber, Esq.
          Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          West Tower, Suite 500
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005-3934
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
                  khandorf@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Wells Fargo & Company, Human Resources
Committee of the Wells Fargo Board of Directors, Wells Fargo
Employee Benefits Review Committee, Hope Hardison, Justin
Thornton, Patricia Callahan, Michael Heid, Timothy Sloan, Lloyd
Dean, John Chen, Susan Engel, Donald James and Stephen Sanger are
represented by:

          Nicholas J. Bullard, Esq.
          Andrew J. Holly, Esq.
          Stephen P. Lucke, Esq.
          Kirsten Schubert, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          50 S. Sixth Street, Suite 1500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
          Telephone: (612) 340-2600
          Facsimile: (612) 677-3103
          E-mail: bullard.nick@dorsey.com
                  holly.andrew@dorsey.com
                  lucke.steve@dorsey.com
                  schubert.kirsten@dorsey.com

               - and -

          Lindsey H. Chopin, Esq.
          Howard Shapiro, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 1800
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 310-4085
          Facsimile: (504) 310-2022
          E-mail: lchopin@proskauer.com
                  howshapiro@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Deidre A. Grossman, Esq.
          Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-2899
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: dagrossman@proskauer.com
                  rhirschhorn@proskauer.com


WESTLAND, MI: Judge Dismisses Water/Sewer Fees Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
LeAnne Rogers, writing for Home Town Life, reports that a class-
action lawsuit alleging Westland was charging excessive
water/sewer rates has been dismissed.

Filed in Wayne County Circuit Court, the lawsuit alleged Westland
charged water/sewer fees in excess of what is needed to cover
actual expenses, with the revenues used to fund general
operations.

That effectively creates a tax in violation of the Headlee
Amendment, according to the lawsuit, which sought a refund for
approximately 27,000 current water customers and that the city be
enjoined from future overcharging.

on June 29, Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Craig Strong issued
an opinion dismissing the lawsuit.

The original plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Westland were two
condominium owners associations, Deerhurst and Woodview, but it
was later certified as a class-action lawsuit. Royal Oak-based
Kickham Hanley law firm filed the lawsuit and has been involved in
similar litigation with several other area communities. A similar
lawsuit against the City of Taylor was also recently dismissed.

Representatives from the condo association and the law firm
couldn't be reached for comment.

The city had filed motions arguing the water/sewer rates were
reasonable and appropriate to cover costs for the system. The
opinion from Strong agreed with the city's position, as well as
finding the city had not improperly transferred money from the
water/sewer fund -- a self-supporting enterprise fund -- to the
general fund to support general public services.

"The City of Westland has, from the beginning, held the position
that this lawsuit was frivolous," Mayor William Wild said. "This
decision by Judge Strong proves that the city was right to oppose
this lawsuit. We are happy with the outcome and will continue to
provide Westland residents with services we hold to the highest of
standards."

For nearly two decades, rates have covered the city's costs,
updates and other improvements to the system. The process, which
has evolved over time, is an acceptable process that allows the
City of Westland to prepare for a disaster while properly
maintaining the water system, Wild said.

Westland spends about $33 million annually operating and
maintaining the local water/sewer systems. With water bills sent
out every other month, the city carries an approximately $2-$3
million in receivables at any given time for the water/sewer fund.

Along with water/sewer rate litigation, Kickham Hanley also filed
lawsuits against several Oakland County communities challenging
drainage district charges for storm water and sewage treatment.
Those communities settled the dispute with the exception of Oak
Park, which is appealing a ruling not to dismiss the lawsuit.
[GN]


WEYERHAEUSER: Container Board Case Edges Closer to Trial
--------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
represented by Foley & Lardner and Eimer Stahl, the company is the
biggest player in the market, especially since it bought two of
the other companies it was accused of colluding with.

Weyerhaeuser, represented in the antitrust suit by McDermott, Will
& Emery, sold its containerboard business to International Paper
for $6 billion in 2008.  Temple-Inland Inc., represented here by
Mayer Brown, was acquired by International Paper in 2012 for $4.5
billion.

(Another defendant, Packaging Corp. of America, represented by
Kirkland & Ellis, settled in 2014 for $17.6 million, and Cascades
Canada ULC/Norampac Holdings U.S. Inc., represented by K&L Gates,
settled for $4.8 million.)

The acquisitions tend to reinforce the notion of coziness, which
would have made the defense more challenging.  Foley partner James
McKeown -- jmckeown@foley.com -- a member of the firm's management
committee and former chair of its antitrust practice, did not
respond to a request for comment.

The settlement contains a somewhat unusual provision.  It allows
International Paper to reduce its settlement payment if Georgia
Pacific settles before trial.  If so, depending on how much
Georgia Pacific pays, International Paper could pay up to $118
million less.

As the case moves forward, Georgia Pacific on its own can stress
that even while other defendants may have reduced capacity, it did
not.

"GP added a fifth containerboard mill -- increasing its capacity -
- during the class period," Wilkinson wrote in a motion for
summary judgment.

"GP was increasing its containerboard capacity during a time when
Plaintiffs allege there was an 'across-the-board' conspiracy to
reduce supply."

As for the price increases, she argues, "There is no evidence that
GP had advance knowledge of any competitor's price increases
announcements -- much less an agreement with them to raise prices
. . . For the most part, GP simply 'followed-the-leader' -- i.e.,
announced a price increase after one or more competitors was
publicly reported to have done so."

Like many antitrust cases, this one may turn on expert witnesses.
On May 31, U.S. District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber released a
lengthy Daubert opinion, where he allowed almost all the
testimony.

But he warned, "While the court has admitted most of the expert
opinions at issue in the case, it cautions the parties that
whether the evidence admitted is sufficient to carry the case to
trial is another matter.  The court will take up that issue when
it rules on the pending motions for summary judgment." [GN]


WV BUSINESS: Attorney's General Office May Take Legal Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Jarvis, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that the
West Virginia Attorney General's office will take legal action
against a for-profit community college if it doesn't stop trying
to enroll students, according to a news release from the
coordinating board that oversees all two-year colleges in the
state.

West Virginia Business College, which has campuses in Nutter Fort
and Wheeling, lost its accreditation in April and its permit to
legally operate in the state was set to be revoked June 30.

Sarah Tucker, chancellor for the Community and Technical College
System, said she received an email that was sent out to the
college's students that suggested the school intends to continue
operating, even after its permit is revoked.

Brandy Woodland sent an email, which the Gazette-Mail obtained a
copy of, to students on June 27.   Ms. Woodland is listed in the
email as the campus director of the Wheeling campus.

Ms. Woodland wrote that students who already graduated will
receive a copy of their transcripts with their diplomas.  The rest
of the students, she wrote, would need to attend a "orientation
for summer quarter, as has always been procedure."

A transcript of the classes a student attended is needed to
transfer to another school.

"It is unethical for them to withhold those transcripts or require
students to attend any such orientation to receive them," Tucker
said.

Federal and state rules require the college to "teach out" its
current students, which means the school needs to help transfer
students currently completing a degree to another school -- one
that is accredited and legally allowed to operate.

Tucker and her staff asked the college for a list of students and
their contact information to start the teach-out process, but that
information hasn't been turned over yet.

No state or federal law requires the school to turn over the
information.  A school official said the college would respond to
the request by June 30, according to Ms. Tucker.

The release did not say what kind of legal action the Attorney
General might take, and a spokesman did not respond to a request
for comment in time for this report.

"West Virginia Business College is not authorized to continue
offering classes in the state of West Virginia," Ms. Tucker said
in the release.  "Their recent actions not only violate their
legal standing, but -- most disturbingly -- are irresponsible and
harmful to students who are trying to move forward with their
lives and education."

The college appealed the loss of their permit to operate in the
state, but the Council for Community and Technical College
Education denied the appeal.

At the time of that meeting, Tucker said a group of students who
recently graduated from the college graduated with unaccredited
degrees.

A handful of students filed a lawsuit against the school in June.
The students seek compensatory and punitive damages from the
school.  Charleston lawyer Rusty Webb, who is representing the
students, wants a judge to certify the lawsuit as a class action,
so other students may be covered by it, as well.

The complaint came as the owners of the college apparently are
distancing themselves from the operation.  The owners retired May
31 and transferred operation of the college to a group of three
past and current employees, according to a statement posted to the
college's Facebook page on June 9.

No representatives from the colleges responded to a request for
comment in time for this report. [GN]


YADKIN VALLEY: Settles Former Employees' WARN Act Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Seaman, writing for Triad Business Journal, reports that
Yadkin Valley Community Hospital has agreed to pay more than $1
million to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleges the hospital
failed to provide sufficient notice to employees before letting
them go when the facility shut down two years ago.

The settlement, which was approved by U.S. District Judge William
Osteen on June 28, will give payments to 142 employees over a
period of seven years.

Employees in the lawsuit allege that they were not given
sufficient notice, as required under the WARN Act, of the layoffs
that occurred when Yadkin Valley Community Hospital closed in
2015.  The WARN Act requires large employers to give written
notice to employees at least 60 days ahead of a mass layoff or a
business closing.

"The settlement brings an end to a long and painful chapter for
the former employees of the Yadkin Valley Community Hospital,"
said Michael Kornbluth, an attorney from Taibi Kornbluth Law
Group.  "We are pleased with the result as it provides the former
employees with substantial compensation for the losses they
experienced."

Yadkin Valley Community Hospital, a 22-bed facility, was owned by
Yadkin County and operated by HMC/CAH Consolidated of Kansas City.

The hospital closed after the county and HMC/CAH were unable to
negotiate the continued operation of the facility, and the county
was unable to agree to a new lease with another company.

John Doyle, an attorney representing CAH Acquisition Co., HMC/CAH
Consolidated, and Rural Community Hospitals of America, declined
to comment, referring to the court's order of the settlement.

The order by Osteen said that members of the class action and the
hospital operators disagree as to whether the latter had any
obligation or liability under the WARN Act regarding the claims
put forth in the lawsuit.

The settlement reflects the recognition by both parties that
"there are significant, complex issues regarding the application
of the WARN Act and the various cases and regulations interpreting
of the WARN Act as they relate to the facts of the case," Osteen
wrote in the order. [GN]


* Long-Term Care Providers Brace for Data Breach Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Berklan, writing for McKnight's, reports that
federal HIPAA penalties have lurked in the wings for years, but
now accused operators have state attorneys' general and
plaintiff's attorneys to worry about.

For example, insurer Anthem reached a $115 million settlement with
consumers over a 2015 event where hackers stole private
information on nearly 80 million people.  Anthem admitted no
wrongdoing, but was dinged by bad publicity and penetration of its
data security.

"I have no doubt that we'll be seeing more of these class-action
suits and settlements as data breaches continue to proliferate,"
Eric Fader -- efader@daypitney.com -- a healthcare attorney with
Day Pitney LLP in New York, told Bloomberg BNA.

Long-term care providers have an added burden of securing records
for an extended period -- and it's usually for information that
remains valid well into the future, unlike credit cards numbers
that can be changed, experts point out.

Ransomware, employee blunders and disgruntled employee actions are
among authorities' biggest concerns.

In May, a Texas health system agreed to a $2.4 million HIPAA-
related settlement after it appropriately named to authorities a
patient who had used a fake I.D. card, but then the provider
carelessly published her name publicly in a press release.
That's why continuing staff training, monitoring, testing and
investment in processes are vital for providers, experts
emphasized.

The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil
Rights recently published a quick-response checklist for providers
who might have been victim of digital skullduggery. [GN]


* South Korea Seeks to Expand Current Class Action System
---------------------------------------------------------
Yonhap reports that the head of South Korea's anti-trust regulator
said on June 29 that he will push to expand the current class
action system to better protect consumers.

"We should put in place an institutional system to effectively
remedy consumer damage," Kim Sang-jo, chairman of the Fair Trade
Commission, said at a ceremony in Eumseong, about 130 kilometers
southeast of Seoul.

In 2005, South Korea introduced the class action system, but it is
only limited to securities-related cases.

A class action is a suit in which victims can enjoy the benefit
from a court ruling, even if he or she does not directly
participate in a legal battle. [GN]




                         *********


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  * * *