CAR_Public/170823.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, August 23, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 166



                            Headlines

7-ELEVEN INC: Illegally Charges Beverage Tax, Says "Tarrant"
ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Riley" Suit in E. Dist. of New York
AFFINION GROUP: Appeal in Trilegiant Membership Suits Underway
AFFINION GROUP: Conn. Class Suit vs. Webloyalty Still Ongoing
AFFINION GROUP: Class Lawsuit vs. Webloyalty in Calif. Ongoing

AG AIR: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Expenses
ALFRED ANGELO: Hightower Seeks to Recover Damages Under WARN Act
ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Sloatman" Hits Illegal Collection Calls
ANTERO RESOURCES: "Stallings" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Drop Merger Suit

AYAD INC: Accused by "Manuel" Suit of Refusing to Pay Overtime
BANNER LIFE: Miller's Furniture Suit Moved from Penn. to Florida
BEHR PROCESS: Faces "Huskey" Consumer Fraud Suit Over DeckOver
BIOGEN INC: Securities Litigation in Massachusetts Still Ongoing
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Drop 3rd "Zamir" Complaint Pending

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: "Nieder" Class Lawsuit Still in Discovery
BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Still Faces FLSA and State Law Breach Claims
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Drop "Sciabacucchi" Case Ongoing
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Bid to Combine 2 Data Security Cases Pending
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Still Faces Shareholders Suits in N.Y. & Colo.

CITIBANK NA: Valencia Sues Over Improperly Paid Personal Bankers
COASTHILLS CREDIT: "Warren" Sues Over Unjust Overdraft Fees
COHN GOLDBERG & DEUTSCH: "Smith" Hits Vague Collection Letter
COOK COUNTY, IL: "Hacker" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CORELOGIC INC: Unit Still Defends "Henderson" Class Action Suit

CVS HEALTH: Accused by "Schultz" Suit of Overcharging Customers
DELIVER TECH: "Romain" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
DIGITALGLOBE INC: Court Denies Injunction Bids in Merger Suits
DIVINE HEALERS: Fails to Properly Pay OT, "Garcia" Suit Alleges
DYNATOS INCORPORATED: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Pipitone Sues Over Inflated Share Price
FACEBOOK INC: Trial on IPO Complaints Scheduled for Oct. 23
FACEBOOK INC: Sept. 26 Hearing in Class C Reclassification Suit
FLUOR CORP: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
FORD MOTOR: Persad Sues Over Defective HVAC System in Explorers

FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Appeal in "Agrawal" Class Suit Still Pending
GARNETT STATION: Love Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages and Overtime
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Kleszynski" Securities Suit Over Duramax
GOLD POINT: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, "Solares" Suit Says
GUIDANCE SOFTWARE: Faces "Lazzaro" Suit in C.D. of Calif.

H-MART COMPANIES: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Interest
HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces "Pecanha" Suit Over Deodorant False Ad
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: ERISA Lawsuit Still Ongoing in New York
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: "Huerta" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
INVUITY INC: California Stockholder Class Action Still Ongoing

ITG INSURANCE: Accused by "Northrup" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
KELLOGG SALES: Must Face Class Action Over Cereal Labels
KIA MOTORS: Engines Have Poor Oil Flow, "Stanczak" Suit Says
L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Missouri Court OKs Settlement of Consumer Suits
L3 TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Ruling on Securities Suit Deal Pending

L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces 401(k) Plan Class Suit in NY
LEGEND SENIOR: "Weaver" Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
LEIDOS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Oshikoya" Suit Says
LG ELECTRONICS: Montanye Sues Over Faulty Compressors in Fridges
LORD & J: Fails to Pay Overtime to Car Cleaners, Rivera Alleges

MASTERCARD INC: Has US$706M Liability Reserve for Merchant Cases
MASTERCARD INC: Parties in Canadian Suit Reach Settlement Pact
MASTERCARD INC: ATM Surcharge Complaints Proceed to Discovery
MASTERCARD INC: Still Defends U.S. Liability Shift Litigation
MDL 2437: Wallboard Price Fixing Conspiracy Claims Still Pending

MDL 2785: "Nordstrum" Class Suit Consolidated in Epipen MDL
MEDITAB SOFTWARE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
MERIDIAN HEALTH: "Slaughter" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
MIDLAND CREDIT: Olson Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Crocombe" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

MINEBEA MITSUMI: Faces Class Suit on Competition Laws in Canada
MONOGRAM RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Hertz" Suit over Merger Bid
NEO TECHNOLOGY: Illegally Released Workers IRS Forms, Suit Claims
NES EQUIPMENT: Faces State Mechanical Suit in E.D.N.Y.
NEW ENGLAND AUTO: Accused by "Gamble" Suit of Violating TCPA

NEW YORK: Mitchell Files Class Action Suit
NORDSTROM INC: Sells Fake "Vintage Rolex" Watches, Suit Says
NORTHLAND GROUP: Gutman Files Suit in E.D. of New York
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Faces "Geigoreva" Suit in E.D. of New York
OWL INC: Perez, et al. Seek to Notify Potential Class Members

PETER THOMAS: Faces "Gonzales" Suit in Central District of Cal.
PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking & Health Class Cases Pending at July 25
PHILIP MORRIS: ADESF Class Suit in Brazil vs. Unit Still Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: Public Prosecutor's Class Action vs. Unit Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: "Letourneau" Class Action vs. Unit Still Ongoing

PHILIP MORRIS: Conseil Quebecois Class Suit v Subsidiary Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Class Litigation in Canada Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Still Pending in "Adams" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: "Semple" Class Action in Canada Remains Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity in "Dorion" Class Action in Canada

PHILIP MORRIS: Still Faces McDermid Class Action Suit in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Bourassa Class Action Still Pending in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity in "Jacklin" Class Action in Ontario
PREMIER NUTRITION: Sued by Gregorio for Misrepresenting Products
RAINBOW CHILD: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Ramnarine Claims

RBC TRANSPORT: "Reynoso" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
RCH LAWN: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
REAL TIME: Faces "Eason" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
RETRIEVAl-MASTERS CREDITORS: Faces "Heerbrandt" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
RIVER OAKS EMERGENCY: Langlinais Wants to Recoup Unpaid Wages, OT

ROCKET FUEL: Faces "Scarantino" Suit Over Acquisition by Sizmek
ROOMSTOGO.COM: "Wetterer" Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
S.C. JOHNSON: Carroll et al. Sue over Sunscreen Lotion Label
SANDEN CORP: Faces Tiffin Motor Suit Over Antitrust Violations
SAWA RESTAURANT: Faces "Vazquez" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

SEARS HOLDINGS: Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
SECURITAS SECURITY: Faces "Mills" Suit in M. Dist. of Fla.
SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: "Shillito" Sues Over Share Price Drop
SERVE LINK: "McLain" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SIX FLAGS: Illinois Appellate Court to Review Privacy Suit

SLM PRIVATE: Navient Removes "McHarris" Class Suit to E.D.N.Y.
SPEEDWAY OFFICE: Innovative Accounting Sues Over Fax Ads
SPLASH INC: Faces "Muniz" Labor Suit in Calif.
STAPLES INC: Faces "Huntley" Suit Over Sale to Sycamore Entities
STAPLES: Faces "Kersey" Suit in Massachusetts

STUCKY LAUER: Accused by "Maloy" Class Suit of Violating FDCPA
SUPERVALU INC: In Settlement Talks over Coupon Conspiracy Suit
SUPERVALU INC: Inks Settlement of 2003 C&S Transaction Suit
THE MET LLC: "Walker" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
TRANSCEND LIVING: "Eure" Suit Seeks Expense Reimbursement

TRUGREEN INC: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Morris" Suit Says
U.S. STEEL: Still Defends Securities Suits in Pennsylvania
UBER TECH: $32 Million Deal in "McKnight" Case Has Initial OK
UBER TECH: Won't Secure Workers Comp, "McCartney" Suit Says
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Suit over Mental Health Coverage Goes to Trial

VIACOM INC: Sued by Rushing for Exfiltrating Kids' Information
WEBMD HEALTH: Shareholders Sue over $2.8B Sale to KKR
WELLS FARGO: Accused by "Ross" Suit of Placing Unneeded Insurance
WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Unneeded Automobile Insurance Fees
WEST MARINE: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Proposed Monomoy Merger

XBIOTECH INC: "Rezko" Securities Class Suit Removed to W.D. Texas






                            *********


7-ELEVEN INC: Illegally Charges Beverage Tax, Says "Tarrant"
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Tarrant, Plaintiff, v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2017CH10873 (Ill. Cir., August 7, 2017), seeks actual damages,
attorney's fees and costs, including interest thereon and all such
further and other relief for violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

This is a class action brought on behalf of the class of persons
who allege that they were improperly charged sweetened beverage
tax by 7-Eleven stores on their retail purchases of unsweetened
beverages in Cook County, Illinois. The Cook County Sweetened
Beverage Tax Ordinance imposes a tax at the rate of $0.01 per
ounce on the retail sale of all sweetened beverage.

Plaintiff purchased an unsweetened coffee beverage in a Super Big
Gulp cup at a 7-Eleven store located at 343 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
      Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
      Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
      Maebetty Kirby
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 440-0020
      Fax: (312) 440-4180


ADVANCED CALL: Faces "Riley" Suit in E. Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Call Center
Technologies, LLC. The case is styled as Renee Riley and Nelsy
Carcano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04823 (E.D. N.Y., August 16, 2017).

Advanced Call provides contact center and back office support
services to companies in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Sanders Law, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


AFFINION GROUP: Appeal in Trilegiant Membership Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the ruling in a class action lawsuit in Connecticut
related to Trilegiant Corporation's membership programs is
ongoing, according to Affinion Group Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filed on July 27, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"),
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for
unjust enrichment.

On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit.  On
February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion.  On
March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to
compel arbitration.  On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit
affirmed the decision of the district court denying arbitration.
While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the
district court.  There was written discovery and depositions.

Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class
certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012.  However, on March 28,
2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due
to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the
Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United
Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD
Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp.,
People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten
USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc.  The second
of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same
defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co.  These two cases
assert similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed
lawsuit in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its
membership programs.  On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated
these three cases.  The court also set an initial status
conference for May 17, 2012.

At that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file
a consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the
three previously separate lawsuits.  The court also struck the
class certification briefing schedule that had been set
previously.

On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims.  The
consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase
Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three
new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as
Defendants.

On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike certain
portions of the complaint.  Plaintiff's response brief was filed
on February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on
April 5, 2013.

On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on the motions
to dismiss.  On March 28, 2014, the court ruled on the motions to
dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part.  The
court dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims and claims under the
California Automatic Renewal Statute as to all defendants.  The
court also dismissed certain named Plaintiffs as their claims were
barred either by the statute of limitations and/or a prior
settlement agreement.  Certain Defendants were also dismissed from
the case.  The court also struck certain allegations from the
consolidated amended complaint, including certain of Plaintiffs'
class action allegations under CUTPA.

As to the Company and Trilegiant, the court denied the motion to
dismiss certain Plaintiffs' claims under ECPA and for unjust
enrichment, as well as certain other claims of Plaintiffs under
CUTPA.

Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these
consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut.  That case is
identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by
a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action
complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November
10, 2010).

On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate that
case into the existing set of consolidated cases.  On June 13,
2013, the court entered an order staying the date for all
Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the
court ruled on the motion to consolidate.  On March 28, 2014, the
court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate.

On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases
filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the
consolidated amended complaint.

On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking interlocutory
appellate review of portions of the court's order of March 28,
2014.  Briefing on the motion was completed on June 5, 2014.  On
March 26, 2015, the court denied Plaintiff's motion for
interlocutory appeal.

On May 29, 2015, the court issued a scheduling order indicating
that discovery was to commence immediately and be completed by
December 31, 2015.  On May 29, 2015, the court also set deadlines
for dispositive motions, which were due February 29, 2016.  If no
dispositive motions were filed, a joint trial memorandum would be
due by April 1, 2016, and jury selection would take place on May
3, 2016.  If dispositive motions were filed, the joint trial
memorandum would be due by October 3, 2016, and jury selection
would take place on November 1, 2016.

On June 16, 2015, the court set a schedule for class
certification, with Plaintiffs' motion for class certification due
on September 15, 2015, and with briefing to be completed by
November 30, 2015.  Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification on September 15, 2015, and Defendants filed an
opposition brief on December 15, 2015.  Plaintiffs filed a reply
brief on December 22, 2015, and Defendants filed a sur-reply on
December 29, 2015.

On February 29, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment on the individual claims of the remaining named
Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs filed a response on March 21, 2016, and
the Company filed its response on April 4, 2016.

On August 23, 2016, the court granted Defendant's motion for
Summary Judgment as to all remaining claims against the
Defendants.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on September 21,
2016.  The Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on appeal on
January 4, 2017.  The Company filed its response brief on April 5,
2017.

Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. engages in designing, marketing, and
servicing customer engagement and loyalty solutions worldwide.
The Company was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in Stamford,
Connecticut.


AFFINION GROUP: Conn. Class Suit vs. Webloyalty Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
July 27, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that Webloyalty
continues to face class action lawsuit in Connecticut.

In 2011, the Company entered into a merger agreement that resulted
in the Webloyalty Acquisition and the acquisition of approximately
21% of the common stock of Affinion Holdings by investment funds
affiliated with General Atlantic LLC with the Apollo Funds
continuing to own approximately 70% of the common stock of
Affinion Holdings.

On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card
associations in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFT"), ECPA, unjust enrichment,
civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and CUTPA
violation (the "Connecticut Action").  This lawsuit relates to
Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1,
2008.

On November 1, 2010, the Defendants moved to dismiss the initial
complaint, which Plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010.  On
December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss
this lawsuit.

On May 15, 2014, the court heard oral argument on Plaintiff's
motion to strike the Company's request for judicial notice of the
Plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in support of
the Company's second motion to dismiss.

On July 17, 2014, the court denied Plaintiff's motion to strike.
The court, at the same time, dismissed those claims grounded in
fraud, but reserved until further proceedings the determination as
to whether all of Plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and
whether those claims not grounded in fraud are dismissible.

The court permitted the Plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to amend
his complaint and allowed the parties the opportunity to conduct
limited discovery, to be completed by September 26, 2014,
concerning the issues addressed in its dismissal order.  All other
discovery was stayed in the case.  The July 17, 2014 order
indicated that the court would set a further motion to dismiss
briefing schedule following the conclusion of this limited
discovery.

The Plaintiff amended his complaint as scheduled, and the parties
conducted limited discovery as ordered.  After this limited
discovery, the parties proposed a motion to dismiss briefing
schedule calling for the Defendants to file their opening briefs
on January 9, 2015.

The Plaintiff filed his opposition brief on March 24, 2015, and on
April 24, 2015, the Defendants filed their reply briefs in
response to that opposition.  On October 15, 2015, the court
entered a judgment dismissing all of the Plaintiff's claims with
prejudice and without further leave to amend.

On November 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of
the dismissal decision.  Plaintiff's opening appeals brief was
filed on February 10, 2016.  The Company's answering brief was
filed on April 15, 2016 and the Plaintiff filed a reply brief on
May 11, 2016.  The court held oral argument on September 14, 2016.

On December 20, 2016, the Court affirmed the District Court's
dismissal decisions, with the exception of Plaintiff's claim under
CUTPA and under the EFT with regard to delivery of a "copy" of the
Plaintiff's authorization to him.  The Court vacated the District
Court's decision on both claims and remanded them to the District
Court for further proceedings on the merits.

On March 23, 2017, the District Court held a scheduling conference
and took the parties' respective recommendations for the remaining
case schedule under advisement.

On June 9, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to amend their
answer to add the affirmative defenses of release and statute of
limitations, as may be applicable to claims under the EFT on
behalf of certain members of the putative class.  Plaintiff filed
his opposition to this motion on June 30, 2017, and the
defendants' reply was filed on July 14, 2017.

Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. engages in designing, marketing, and
servicing customer engagement and loyalty solutions worldwide.
The Company was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in Stamford,
Connecticut.


AFFINION GROUP: Class Lawsuit vs. Webloyalty in Calif. Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
July 27, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that Webloyalty
still defends itself against a class action lawsuit pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

In 2011, the Company entered into a merger agreement that resulted
in the Webloyalty Acquisition and the acquisition of approximately
21% of the common stock of Affinion Holdings by investment funds
affiliated with General Atlantic LLC with the Apollo Funds
continuing to own approximately 70% of the common stock of
Affinion Holdings.

On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Webloyalty that was factually similar to the class action filed in
Connecticut.  The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in
unlawful business practices in violation of California Business
and Professional Code 17200, et seq. and in violation of CUTPA.
Both claims are based on allegations that in connection with
enrollment and billing of the Plaintiff, Webloyalty charged
Plaintiff's credit or debit card using information obtained
through a data pass process and without obtaining directly from
Plaintiff his full account number, name, address, and contact
information, as purportedly required under the Restore Online
Shoppers' Confidence Act.

On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety and the court scheduled a hearing on the
motion for January 14, 2013.  Webloyalty also sought judicial
notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment and account
documents.  Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012,
and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013.
Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the court cancelled the
previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that
it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without
the need for a hearing.

On August 28, 2013, the court sua sponte dismissed Plaintiff's
complaint without prejudice with leave to amend by September 30,
2013.  The Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 30,
2013, adding purported claims under the ECPA and for unjust
enrichment, money had and received, conversion, civil theft, and
invasion of privacy.

On December 2, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss Plaintiff's
amended complaint.  Plaintiff responded to the motion on January
27, 2014.

On February 6, 2014, the court indicated that it would review the
submissions and issue a decision on Plaintiff's motion without
oral argument.

On September 29, 2014, the court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims
on substantive grounds and/or statute of limitations grounds.  The
court allowed the Plaintiff 28 days to file a motion demonstrating
why a further amendment of the complaint was not futile.

On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint and attached a proposed amended complaint.
The Company responded to the motion on November 10, 2014.

On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final order and judgment
denying Plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims
with prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice.

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The Company
responded to the motion on November 10, 2014.

On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final order and judgment
denying Plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims
with prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice.

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiff filed his opening appeal brief on November 19, 2015,
and the Company's answering brief was filed on January 19, 2016.
Plaintiff filed a reply brief on February 2, 2016.  A hearing on
the appeal was held on February 17, 2017.

On March 28, 2017, the Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff's
current complaint had stated claims, which remain as of yet
unproven, sufficiently to permit him to proceed with the
litigation.  Specifically, the Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court's procedural dismissal of the Plaintiff's various
federal and state causes of action, with the exception of
dismissal of his ECPA claim and privacy-based state law claims,
which the Court of Appeals affirmed.  The Court of Appeals also
vacated the District Court's order denying the Plaintiff leave to
amend, thereby allowing the Plaintiff to reassert his claims under
the EFT, which had previously been dismissed.

The District Court has scheduled its first hearing to discuss the
Court of Appeals' decision for August 7, 2017.

Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. engages in designing, marketing, and
servicing customer engagement and loyalty solutions worldwide.
The Company was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in Stamford,
Connecticut.


AG AIR: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Expenses
------------------------------------------------------
Jose Aguilar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. AG Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc., a
California Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. BC671805 (Cal. Super., August 9, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
wages and interest thereon, redress for failure to authorize or
permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, reimbursements for business-
related expenses and failure to maintain time-keeping records,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, and reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code,
Unfair Competition Law and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in June 2014 as an installer
for the Defendants' air conditioning and heating business,
installing, repairing, diagnosing, maintaining, and inspecting air
conditioning and heating units across California.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Hawkins, Esq.
      Gregory Mauro, Esq.
      JAMES HAWKINS APLC
      9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 387-7200
      Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
      Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
             Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


ALFRED ANGELO: Hightower Seeks to Recover Damages Under WARN Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH HIGHTOWER on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ALFRED ANGELO NEWCO, INC., Case No. 17-01324-PGH (S.D.
Fla., August 9, 2017), is a purported class action adversary
proceeding brought to recover from the Defendant damages in the
amount of 60 days' pay and Employee Retirement Income Security Act
benefits as a result of the Defendant's violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

Alfred Angelo Newco, Inc., was a Florida corporation, which
maintained a facility at 1625 South Congress Avenue, in Delray
Beach, Florida.

The Chapter 7 bankruptcy case of the Debtor is captioned IN RE: AA
FLORIDA BRIDAL RETAIL COMPANY, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-18864-PGH.

Ms. Hightower was an employee of the Debtor and was terminated on
July 13, 2017, as part of, or as a result of a plant closing
ordered by the Defendant.  She contends that the Defendant
violated the WARN Act by failing to give her and other similarly
situated employees at least 60 days' advance written notice of
termination, as required by the WARN Act.  As a consequence, she
asserts, she and other similarly situated employees are entitled
under the WARN Act to recover from the Defendant their wages and
ERISA benefits for 60 days, none of which has been paid.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark S. Roher, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK S. ROHER, P.A.
          101 N.E. Third Ave., Suite 1518
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 353-2200
          Facsimile: (877) 654-0090
          E-mail: mroher@markroherlaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122
          E-mail: sjm@lankmill.com

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
          210 S. Washington Avenue
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
          E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com
                  vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com

               - and -

          THE NLG MAURICE AND JANE SUGAR
          LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL JUSTICE,
          A Non-Profit Law Firm
          733 St. Antoine, 3rd Floor
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 962-6540


ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Sloatman" Hits Illegal Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Sloatman III and Lala Sloatman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Allied Interstate
LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
05936 (C.D. Cal., August 10, 2017), seeks statutory damages and
injunctive relief resulting from violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Allied Interstate LLC is a collection agency that provides
accounts receivable, customer retention and debt collection
services to blue-chip companies, from a wide range of industries.
Defendant called Plaintiffs using an automatic telephone dialing
system to attempt to collect a consumer debt allegedly incurred by
the Sloatmans. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            twheeler@toddflaw.com


ANTERO RESOURCES: "Stallings" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Stallings, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Antero Resources Corp., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-01939 (D. Colo., August 10, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Antero is an oil and natural gas exploration and production
company. Stalling worked for the Antero as a solids Control
Operator and Pipeline Inspector. He allegedly was classified as an
independent contractor, thus denied overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 352-1100
     Fax: (713) 352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
            adunlap@mybackwages.com
            litkin@mybackwages.com
            jbresler@mybackwages.com

            - and -

     Richard J. Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Drop Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. is awaiting court action on a motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit related to the acquisition of
JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp., according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on July 26, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the
"Merger") for JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp.  The Tender Offer
and Merger are collectively defined herein as the "Transactions."
All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's
board of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current
members of ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual
Defendants") and JMI Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as
defendants.  Certain cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional
defendants.

The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN's common
stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of
JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the
putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims that the
Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to
take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders;
ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of interest; failed
to disclose material information about the Transactions; took
steps to avoid competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair
advantage by failing to adequately solicit other potential
acquirors or alternative transactions; and erected unreasonable
barriers to other third-party bidders.

The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants.  The lawsuits seek equitable relief,
including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of
3 the Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if
already consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.  The sole Florida lawsuit
was never served on the defendants, and that case was voluntarily
dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017.

On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order
consolidating the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned
In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation
(Case No. 24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the
Maryland cases as interim lead co-counsel.

On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste.

On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.  A hearing was held on the
Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and the Court reserved ruling.

To date, the Court has not issued an order on the Motion to
Dismiss.

The Company said, "Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual
Defendants intends to defend the claims made in these lawsuits
vigorously; however, there can be no assurance that any of ARMOUR,
JAVELIN, ACM or the Individual Defendants will prevail in its
defense of any of these lawsuits to which it is a party.  An
unfavorable resolution of any such litigation surrounding the
Transactions may result in monetary damages being awarded to the
plaintiffs and the putative class of former stockholders of
JAVELIN and the cost of defending the litigation, even if resolved
favorably, could be substantial.  Due to the preliminary nature
all of these suits, ARMOUR is not able at this time to estimate
their outcome."

ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. invests in residential mortgage
backed securities in the United States.  It is managed by ARMOUR
Capital Management LP.  The Company was founded in 2008 and is
based in Vero Beach, Florida.


AYAD INC: Accused by "Manuel" Suit of Refusing to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
RODOLFO MANUEL, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) v. AYAD, INC. d/b/a AFRAH, AFRAHCO LLC, AYAD EL
HORR, and NABIL EL HORR, Case No. 3:17-cv-02094-C (N.D. Tex.,
August 8, 2017), accuses the Defendants of willfully and
intentionally refusing to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

AYAD, INC., doing business as AFRAH, is a company that regularly
transacts business within the Northern District of Texas.  AFRAHCO
LLC is a company that regularly transacts business within the
Northern District of Texas.  The Individual Defendants are
corporate officers, owners or managers of the Defendant Companies.

The Defendant Companies are part of a joint enterprise and their
related activities include the operation of the "Afrah"
Mediterranean restaurants with locations in Richardson, Texas, and
Irving, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
          Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
                  rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
                  josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


BANNER LIFE: Miller's Furniture Suit Moved from Penn. to Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit entitled MILLER'S FURNITURE OF
MERCER COMPANY v. BANNER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-00557, was transferred on August 9, 2017, from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft.
Myers).  The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-
cv-00456-UA-CM to the proceeding.

In its complaint, Miller's Furniture alleges that the Defendants
have sent advertisements by facsimile in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Banner Life Insurance Company is an insurance company incorporated
in Maryland and headquartered in Frederick, Maryland.[BN]

Plaintiff MILLER'S FURNITURE OF MERCER COMPANY doing business as:
HANEY'S COMFORT LIVING FURNITURE a Pennsylvania Corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, is represented by:

          Richard E. Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS LLC
          P.O. Box 7255
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (412) 716-5800
          Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

Defendants Banner Life Insurance Company and WILLIAM PENN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK are represented by:

          Damian C. Georgino, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          999 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3996
          Telephone: (404) 853-8051

               - and -

          Lewis S. Wiener, Esq.
          SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN, LLP
          700 6th Street, N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 383-0100
          E-mail: lewiswiener@eversheds-sutherland.com

Defendants DJM Advisory Group LLC and DONALD QUIRKE are
represented by:

          Nicole L. Milone, Esq.
          Paul B. Sweeney, Esq.
          CERTILMAN, BALIN, ADLER & HYMAN, LLP
          90 Merrick Ave., 9th Floor
          East Meadow, NY 11554-1597
          Telephone: (516) 296-7000
          Facsimile: (516) 296-7111
          E-mail: nmilone@certilmanbalin.com
                  psweeney@certilmanbalin.com


BEHR PROCESS: Faces "Huskey" Consumer Fraud Suit Over DeckOver
--------------------------------------------------------------
JANICE HUSKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BEHR PROCESS CORP.; BEHR PAINT CORP.; MASCO CORP.; THE
HOME DEPOT, INC.; and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-
01374 (C.D. Cal., August 9, 2017), is a consumer fraud class
action brought on behalf of purchasers of the Behr Premium
DECKOVER(R) deck and concrete resurfacing and restoration product.

Despite knowing that the DeckOver Products are defective, the
Defendants marketed and sold DeckOver to thousands upon thousands
of unsuspecting consumers, causing them to suffer extensive
monetary damage, Ms. Huskey alleges.  She contends that rather
than providing years of protection in exchange for its premium
price, DeckOver deteriorates quickly within mere months of its
application, and in some cases weeks.

Behr Process Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of MASCO
Corporation, has manufactured and sold a deck resurfacing product
called DeckOver that is sold exclusively at Home Depot branded
stores.  Behr Process Corporation and Behr Paint Corporation are
California corporations, with their principal place of business in
Santa Ana, California.

MASCO Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of
business located in Taylor, Michigan.  MASCO acquired Behr Process
Corporation in 1999.  MASCO is one of the largest manufacturers
and suppliers of architectural paint, coatings, and exterior wood
care products in the United States.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business in Georgia. Home Depot operates as a
subsidiary of The Home Depot, Inc.  The Home Depot, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in
Georgia.  The Home Depot, Inc. describes itself as the world's
largest home improvement retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          One America Plaza
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
                  sward@barrack.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (281) 488-8854
          Facsimile: (281) 488-8867
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          JOHNSON VINES, PLLC
          2226 Cottondale Ln., Suite #210
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (888) 505-0909
          E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com


BIOGEN INC: Securities Litigation in Massachusetts Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Biogen Inc. continues to face a possible class action in
Massachusetts related to alleged violations of federal securities
laws, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "We and certain current and former officers were
defendants in In re Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation, filed by a
shareholder on August 18, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.  The amended complaint alleged
violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C. Section
78j(b) and Section 78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 and the
lead plaintiff sought a declaration of the action as a class
action, certification as a representative of the class and its
counsel as class counsel, and an award of damages, interest and
attorneys' fees.  The U.S. District Court dismissed the case in
2016 and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed
the dismissal in May 2017.

"We and certain current and former officers are also defendants in
an action filed by another shareholder on October 20, 2016, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts related to
the matter described above.  The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C Section 78j(b) and Section
78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 and seeks a declaration of
the action as a class action and an award of damages, interest and
attorneys' fees.  An estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss cannot be made at this time."

Biogen Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, discovers, develops,
manufactures, and delivers therapies for the treatment of
neurological and autoimmune diseases worldwide.  It offers
products through its sales force and marketing groups.  The
Company was formerly known as Biogen Idec Inc. and changed its
name to Biogen Inc. in March 2015.  Biogen Inc. was founded in
1978 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Drop 3rd "Zamir" Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in a securities
class action initiated in California by Nelda Zamir against
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. is currently pending with the court,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 26, 2017, with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017.

On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and
Daniel Devine as defendants.  The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false
and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's
improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess
collectability of funds owed by students.  The complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30, 2014
and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys'
fees.

On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel.

On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantially similar
amended complaint that asserts a putative class period stemming
from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014.  The amended complaint also
names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, Warburg Pincus & Co., Warburg
Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC, and Warburg Pincus
Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additional defendants.

On November 24, 2015, all defendants filed motions to dismiss.

On July 25, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss and
granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30
days.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint
and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss on October 24,
2016, which was granted by the Court with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on April 19, 2017 and
the defendants filed a third motion to dismiss, which is currently
pending with the court.

The Company said, "The outcome of this legal proceeding is
uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and
law that may arise.  The Company has not accrued any liability
associated with this action."

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides postsecondary education services.  Its academic
institutions, Ashford University and University of the Rockies,
offer associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree
programs in the disciplines of business, education, psychology,
social sciences, and health sciences.  The company offers its
programs primarily through online; and at its campuses.  The
company was formerly known as TeleUniversity, Inc. and changed its
name to Bridgepoint Education, Inc. in February 2004.  Bridgepoint
Education, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San
Diego, California.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: "Nieder" Class Lawsuit Still in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on
July 26, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the case,
Nieder v. Ashford University, LLC, is still in discovery.

On October 4, 2016, Dustin Nieder filed a purported class action
against Ashford University in the Superior Court of the State of
California in San Diego.  The complaint is captioned Dustin Nieder
v. Ashford University, LLC and generally alleges various wage and
hour claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
failure to pay minimum wages and failure to provide rest and meal
breaks.  The lawsuit seeks back pay, the cost of benefits,
penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class members, as
well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees.  The Company
filed an answer denying the claims and the case is currently in
discovery.

The Company said, "The outcome of this legal proceeding is
uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and
law that may arise.  Based on information available to the Company
at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this
action.  Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability
associated with this action."

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides postsecondary education services.  Its academic
institutions, Ashford University and University of the Rockies,
offer associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree
programs in the disciplines of business, education, psychology,
social sciences, and health sciences.  The company offers its
programs primarily through online; and at its campuses.  The
company was formerly known as TeleUniversity, Inc. and changed its
name to Bridgepoint Education, Inc. in February 2004.  Bridgepoint
Education, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San
Diego, California.


BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Still Faces FLSA and State Law Breach Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. still defends itself against class action
suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York state law
and in other states, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 25, 2017.

On June 2, 2015, two of the Company's former employees (the
"plaintiffs") filed a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and putative class action under New York
state law against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Western District of New York.  The claim alleges that the
Company has a policy or procedure requiring employees who receive
compensation in part through tip credits to perform work that is
ineligible for tip credit compensation at a tip credit rate in
violation of the FLSA and New York state law.

On September 27, 2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
include putative class action claims under the laws of seven
additional states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa,
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
We believe there is a reasonable possibility of loss related to
these claims; however, given the early stage of the case, we are
currently unable to determine the potential range of exposure, if
any."

Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. owns, operates, and franchises
restaurants under Buffalo Wild Wings, R Taco, and PizzaRev names.
The company's restaurants provide various food products, as well
as non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages.  The Company was founded
in 1982 and is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Drop "Sciabacucchi" Case Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that the parties in the Matthew
Sciabacucchi litigation are providing additional briefing that the
court seeks in relation to whether plaintiff's claims are direct
or derivative.

In August 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter, Matthew
Sciabacucchi, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
on behalf of a putative class of Charter stockholders, challenging
the transactions between Charter, TWC, A/N, and Liberty Broadband
announced by Charter on May 26, 2015.  The lawsuit names as
defendants Liberty Broadband, Charter, the board of directors of
Charter, and New Charter.

Plaintiff alleged that the Liberty Transactions improperly benefit
Liberty Broadband at the expense of other Charter shareholders,
and that Charter issued a false and misleading proxy statement in
connection with the Transactions and the Liberty Transactions.

Plaintiff requested, among other things, that the Delaware Court
of Chancery enjoin the September 21, 2015 special meeting of
Charter stockholders at which Charter stockholders were asked to
vote on the Transactions and the Liberty Transactions until the
defendants disclosed certain information relating to Charter, the
Transactions and the Liberty Transactions.  The disclosures
demanded by the plaintiff included (i) certain unlevered free cash
flow projections for Charter and (ii) a Form of Proxy and Right of
First Refusal Agreement ("Proxy") by and among Liberty Broadband,
A/N, Charter and New Charter, which was referenced in the
description of the Second Amended and Restated Stockholders
Agreement, dated May 23, 2015, among Charter, New Charter, Liberty
Broadband and A/N.

On September 9, 2015, Charter issued supplemental disclosures
containing unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter.  In
return, the plaintiff agreed its disclosure claims were moot and
withdrew its application to enjoin the Charter stockholder vote on
the Transactions and the Liberty Transactions.

Charter filed a motion to dismiss this litigation and on May 31,
2017, the court issued an opinion, concluding a number of issues
but reserving ruling on Charter's motion until further briefing
can be done regarding whether plaintiff's claims are direct or
derivative.

The parties are presently providing the additional briefing that
the court seeks.

The Company said, "Charter denies any liability, believes that it
has substantial defenses, and intends to vigorously defend this
suit.  Although Charter is unable to predict the outcome of this
lawsuit, it does not expect the outcome will have a material
effect on its operations, financial condition or cash flows."

Charter Communications, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
cable services to residential and commercial customers in the
United States.  It was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Stamford, Connecticut.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Bid to Combine 2 Data Security Cases Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that a motion to consolidate the
purported class action complaint of Bellwether Community Credit
Union and of Alcoa Community Credit Union pending in Colorado
related to a data security incident is still pending.

The Company said, "In April 2017, our information security team
detected unauthorized activity on the network that supports
payment processing for our restaurants, and immediately began an
investigation with the help of leading computer security firms.
We also self-reported the issue to payment card processors and law
enforcement.  Our investigation detected malware designed to
access payment card data from cards used at point-of-sale devices
at most Chipotle restaurants, primarily in the period from March
24, 2017 through April 18, 2017.  The malware searched for track
data, which may include cardholder name, card number, expiration
date, and internal verification codes; however, no other customer
information was affected.  We have removed the malware from our
systems and continue to evaluate ways to enhance our security
measures.  We expect that substantially all of our investigation
costs will be covered by insurance.  It is not possible at this
time to reasonably estimate the amount of any payment card network
assessments or regulatory fines or penalties, for which our
insurance coverage is limited, or other liabilities in connection
with the incident.

"On May 4, 2017, Bellwether Community Credit Union filed a
purported class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado alleging that we negligently
failed to provide adequate security to protect the payment card
information of customers of the plaintiffs and those of other
similarly situated credit unions, banks and other financial
institutions alleged to be part of the putative class, causing
those institutions to suffer financial losses.  The complaint also
claims we were negligent per se based on alleged violations of
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and similar state
laws.  The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

"On May 26, 2017, Alcoa Community Credit Union filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado making substantially the same allegations as the
Bellwether complaint and seeking substantially the same relief.
Bellwether and Alcoa have jointly moved to consolidate their
cases, and a ruling on the consolidation motion remains pending."

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops and operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants.  The
company was founded in 1993 and is based in Denver, Colorado.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Still Faces Shareholders Suits in N.Y. & Colo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. continues to defend itself against
shareholder class actions pending in New York and in Colorado,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of shares of the Company's common
stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016.  The complaint
purports to state claims against the Company, each of the co-Chief
Executive Officers serving during the claimed class period and the
Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and related rules, based on the Company's alleged
failure during the claimed class period to disclose material
information about its quality controls and safeguards in relation
to consumer and employee health.

The complaint asserts that those failures and related public
statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the
market price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated
during the claimed class period.  The complaint seeks damages on
behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest,
and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other
costs.

On March 8, 2017, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, with leave to amend.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2017.

Additionally, on July 20, 2017, Elizabeth Kelly filed a complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of shares of the Company's
common stock between February 5, 2016 and July 19, 2017, with
claims and factual allegations similar to the Ong complaint, based
primarily on media reports regarding illnesses associated with a
Chipotle restaurant in Sterling, Virginia.

The Company said, "We intend to defend these cases vigorously, but
it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome
of or any potential liability from the cases."

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops and operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants.  The
company was founded in 1993 and is based in Denver, Colorado.


CITIBANK NA: Valencia Sues Over Improperly Paid Personal Bankers
----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNETTE VALENCIA, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. CITIBANK, N.A., and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. BC671428 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., August 7, 2017), is a California state-wide class action for
wage and labor violations arising out of, among other things,
Citibank's failure to compensate their personal banker sales force
in compliance with California law.

Ms. Valencia contends that her claims are based on the Defendant's
alleged common unlawful payment practice, which failed to fully
compensate class members for overtime and missed meal breaks
actually recorded by the Defendants.

Citibank, N.A., is a bank, that is authorized to conduct and is
actually conducting business in the state of California.  Citibank
provides commercial and consumer banking products and services.
The Plaintiff is currently ignorant of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com


COASTHILLS CREDIT: "Warren" Sues Over Unjust Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gary Warren, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CoastHills Credit Union and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC671582 (Cal. Super., August 9,
2017), seeks monetary damages, restitution, punitive damages and
injunctive relief against Defendant Coasthills arising from
CoastHills' practice of charging improper overdraft fees.  The
suit asserts breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law.

Warren asserts that CoastHills charges overdraft fees for
transactions for which there was money in the checking account to
cover the transactions.

CoastHills Credit Union is a federal chartered credit union
organized under the laws of California, with principal offices
located at 3880 Constellation Road, Lompoc, California. Warren
maintained a checking account at one of Coasthills' branches in
California. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
      Samantha A. Smith, Esq.
      THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250
      Irvine, CA 92604
      Telephone: (949) 724-9200
      Facsimile: (949) 724-9255
      Email: scott@cooper-fimi.com
             samantha@cooper-firm.com

             - and -

      Amber L. Eck, Esq.
      Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
      Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, Esq.
      HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
      225 Broadway, Suite 2050
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 342-8000
      Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
      Email: ambere@haelaw.com
             alreenh@haelaw.com
             kathleenh@haelaw.com


COHN GOLDBERG & DEUTSCH: "Smith" Hits Vague Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
James A. Smith, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cohn, Goldberg & Deutsch, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02291 (D. Md., August 10, 2017), seeks actual and
statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
further relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant sent a communication on November 15, 2016, that refers
to five separate entities purportedly connected in some way with a
certain debt. However, it fails to clearly specify the name of the
actual creditor to whom the Debt was owed, says the complaint.

Cohn, Goldberg & Deutsch, LLC concentrates its practice in real
state, real estate litigation and transactions, commercial and
residential settlements, REO closing services, title settlement,
axation and land use and Truth-In-Lending litigation as well as
collection work.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric N. Stravitz, Esq.
      STRAVITZ LAW FIRM, PC
      4300 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 100
      Lanham, MD 20706
      Tel: (240) 467-5741
      Fax: (240) 467-5743
      Email: eric@stravitzlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Tel: (561) 826-5477
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: "Hacker" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Gerald Hacker, individually and for a class,
the Plaintiff, v. Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04282 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff
moves the Court to order that this case may proceed as a class
action under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(b)(2) for:

   "(i) all individuals incarcerated by the Sheriff of Cook
   County currently and in the future; (ii) classified as either
   "deaf" or "hearing impaired" in C-COMS; and (iii) who require
   accommodations, including interpreters or other auxiliary aids
   or services, to communicate effectively and/or access to
   programs or services available to individuals incarcerated by
   the Sheriff during the Class Period";

   and Rule 23(b)(3) for:

   "(i) all individuals incarcerated by the Sheriff of Cook
   County from July 25, 2015 to the date of entry of judgment;
   (ii) classified as either "deaf" or "hearing impaired" in C-
   COMS; and (iii) who require accommodations, including
   interpreters or other auxiliary aids or services, to
   communicate effective and/or access to programs or services
   available to individuals incarcerated by the Sheriff during
   the Class Period".

The Plaintiff alleges that, while in the Jail's custody, he and
other deaf and hard of hearing inmates have systemically been
denied the assistance they need to communicate effectively and
participate in the Jail's programs and services, in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wI2G8Pdz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Morrissey, Esq.
          Thomas G. Morrissey, Esq.
          MORRISSEY, JOSEPH PATRICK LAW OFFICES OF
          10150 S. Western Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60643
          Telephone: (773) 233 7900

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kelly Olivier, Esq.
          ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY
          500 Richard J. Daley Center
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 603 3368
          E-mail: kelly.olivier@cookcountyil.gov


CORELOGIC INC: Unit Still Defends "Henderson" Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to face a putative class
action initiated by Tyrone Henderson, et al., over alleged Fair
Credit Reporting Act violations, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In February 2012, CoreLogic National Background Data, LLC (n/k/a
CoreLogic Background Data, LLC) ("CBD") was named as a defendant
in a putative class action styled Tyrone Henderson, et al., v.
CoreLogic National Background Data, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  Plaintiffs allege
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and have pled a
putative class claim relating to CBD's return of criminal record
data in response to search queries initiated by its consumer
reporting agency customers, which then prepare and transmit
employment background screening reports to their employer
customers.  Plaintiffs contend that CBD failed to send notice
letters to consumers each time search results were returned to
CBD's consumer reporting agency customers.

In February 2016, the court denied CBD's motion for partial
summary judgment.  Plaintiffs initially sought to represent a
nationwide class of consumers who were the subject of searches
conducted by CBD's customers.  The court denied without prejudice
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on three separate
occasions in April 2015, April 2016 and September 2016.  However,
in September 2016, the court allowed Plaintiffs to seek
certification of three subclasses and in March 2017, Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification as to one of these
subclasses, seeking to certify a class of consumers for whom sex
offender records were returned that did not reflect a date of
birth associated with the record.  That motion is fully briefed
and remains pending.

CoreLogic, Inc. provides property information, analytics, and
data-enabled services in North America, Western Europe, and the
Asia Pacific.  It was formerly known as The First American
Corporation and changed its name to CoreLogic, Inc. in June 2010.
CoreLogic, Inc. was incorporated in 1894 and is headquartered in
Irvine, California.


CVS HEALTH: Accused by "Schultz" Suit of Overcharging Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, Case No. 1:17-cv-00359
(D.R.I., August 7, 2017), accuses CVS of making money and getting
more business by agreeing with Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) to
defraud its customers.

CVS's customers are not getting "affordable care" because CVS has
participated in a fraudulent scheme to overcharge for certain
generic pharmaceuticals (the "Affected Drugs"), the Plaintiff
alleges.  She contends that CVS deliberately charges customers,
who use their insurance more for the Affected Drugs as compared to
customers who pay cash or simply don't use their insurance.  She
brings the lawsuit for alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, state consumer protection laws and common law
fraud.

CVS Health Corporation, doing business as CVS/Caremark,
CVS/Pharmacy, CVS/Minute Clinic, and CVS/Specialty is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Woonsocket,
Rhode Island.  CVS does business throughout the United States and
has more than 9,600 retail locations, serving approximately 100
million customers and earning $177.5 billion in revenue
annually.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen M. Prignano, Esq.
          MCINTYRE TATE LLP
          321 South Main Street, Suite 400
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 351-7700
          Facsimile: (401) 331-6095
          E-mail: smp@mtlesq.com

               - and -

          Steve Berman, Esq.
          Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  jerrodp@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 248-5403
          Facsimile: (202) 580-6559
          E-mail: jenniferc@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
          Martin Woodward, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW GROUP
          6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (214) 443-0358
          E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com
                  mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com


DELIVER TECH: "Romain" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen M. Romain, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Deliver Technology, LLC and Cogint, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-80932 (S.D. Fla., August 10, 2017),
seeks actual or statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendants allegedly placed non-emergency telephone calls to
consumers' cellular telephone numbers using an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without the
prior express consent of the Plaintiff.

Deliver Technology operates the website www.savetoday.com, a site
for samples, deals, coupons and sweepstakes. Deliver Technology
used a prerecorded message to offer Romain reward vouchers to sign
up for a shopping club membership. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
      Austin, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 322-3912
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


DIGITALGLOBE INC: Court Denies Injunction Bids in Merger Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
DigitalGlobe, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on July 26,
2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the motion for
preliminary injunction in the "Zand" and "Gussin" merger-related
putative class actions have been denied by the court on July 21,
2017.

DigitalGlobe and its Board of Directors are named as defendants in
six putative class action lawsuits filed by purported stockholders
of DigitalGlobe that challenge the upcoming merger with MacDonald,
Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. ("MDA").

The lawsuits include George Assad v. DigitalGlobe, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01097-PAB-NYW, Jeweltex Manufacturing Inc.
Retirement Plan v. DigitalGlobe, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-
01140-PAB-NYW, Royce Bussey v. DigitalGlobe, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-01159-PAB-NYW, Dane Gussin v. DigitalGlobe, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01190-PAB-NYW Stuart Zand v. DigitalGlobe,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01570-PAB-NYW, and Matthew Machion
v. DigitalGlobe, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01692-NYW et al., all
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of
Colorado except for Stuart Zand (filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware and subsequently transferred to U.S.
District Court for the District Court of Colorado).

The complaints allege, among other things, that in connection with
MDA's proposed acquisition of DigitalGlobe, DigitalGlobe and its
Board of Directors purportedly agreed to a supposedly inadequate
price for the DigitalGlobe capital stock, omitted to disclose
information in the F-4 registration statement necessary to make
the statements therein not materially false or misleading, and
potentially engaged in self-dealing.

MDA is named as a defendant in three of the lawsuits; SSL MDA
Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MDA, and Merlin
Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of SSL MDA Holdings,
Inc., are named as defendants in two of the lawsuits.

Plaintiffs seek as relief, among other things, declaratory and
injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the
transaction and rescissory damages to the extent already
implemented, an order directing the dissemination of a
registration statement that is not false or misleading, and an
award of attorneys' and experts' fees.

On June 5, 2017, and June 14, 2017, plaintiffs in Zand and Gussin,
respectively, filed motions for preliminary injunction to enjoin
the merger until supplemental disclosures have been made to
address the alleged omissions in the F-4 registration statement.

On July 14, 2017, the court held a consolidated hearing on both
motions, and took the motions under submission.

On July 21, 2017, these motions for preliminary injunction were
denied by the court.

The Company said, "While it is too early to predict the outcome of
litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses, DigitalGlobe
and MDA believe these lawsuits are without merit.  Additional
lawsuits arising out of or relating to the merger agreement or the
merger may be filed in the future."

DigitalGlobe, Inc. provides earth-imagery, data, and analysis in
the United States and internationally.  It sources its imagery
solutions and other services from its own satellite constellation
and third-party providers.  The Company was formerly known as
EarthWatch, Incorporated and changed its name to DigitalGlobe,
Inc. in August 2002.  DigitalGlobe, Inc. was incorporated in 1993
and is headquartered in Westminster, Colorado.


DIVINE HEALERS: Fails to Properly Pay OT, "Garcia" Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR GARCIA Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. DIVINE HEALERS, INC. d/b/a HEALING HANDS HEALTHCARE,
Case No. 4:17-cv-02427 (S.D. Tex., August 8, 2017), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
pay its employees, including the Named Plaintiff and Class
Members, at one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours within a workweek.

Divine Healers, Inc., is a Texas corporation with its principal
office located in Katy, Texas.  Divine Healers is a home health
care provider.  Divine Healers employs registered nurses and
licensed vocational nurses to provide health care for patients in
their homes.  Divine Healers also employs Certified Nursing Aids
and Providers to provide home care for individual patients in
their own homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          13590 Ranch Road 12
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Telecopier: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com
                  daniel@morelandlaw.com


DYNATOS INCORPORATED: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Sanchez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Dynatos Incorporated d/b/a Masters Touch Cleaning,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00743 (W.D. Tex., August 8, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to compensate non-exempt
employees for their overtime work.

Dynatos Incorporated is an enterprise that engages in commerce or
in the production of goods for commerce. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Loren, Esq.
      George Z. Goldberg, Esq.
      Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
      3102 Maple Ave, Suite 450
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (800) 719-1617
      Facsimile: (954) 585-4886
      E-mail: jloren@lorenlaw.com
              rrustmann@goldbergloren.com
              ggoldberg@goldbergdohan.com

ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Pipitone Sues Over Inflated Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Pipitone, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.,
Guy Gecht and Marc Olin, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05992
(D.N.J., August 10, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint says Defendants failed to disclose that the company
was improperly recognizing revenue, and that the Company's
disclosure controls and internal control over financial reporting
were not effective. On this news, shares of the Company fell
$21.61 per share or over 45% from its previous closing price to
close at $26.05 per share on August 4, 2017, damaging investors
including the Plaintiff, who purchased the Company's securities at
artificially inflated prices.

Electronics for Imaging provides industrial format display
graphics, label and packaging, textile, and ceramic tile
decoration digital inkjet printers worldwide. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


FACEBOOK INC: Trial on IPO Complaints Scheduled for Oct. 23
-----------------------------------------------------------
The trial on Facebook, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on
various complaints related to its initial public offering is
scheduled to begin on October 23, 2017, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filed on July 27, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "Beginning on May 22, 2012, multiple putative
class actions, derivative actions, and individual actions were
filed in state and federal courts in the United States and in
other jurisdictions against us, our directors, and/or certain of
our officers alleging violation of securities laws or breach of
fiduciary duties in connection with our initial public offering
(IPO) and seeking unspecified damages.  We believe these lawsuits
are without merit, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend
them.  The vast majority of the cases in the United States, along
with multiple cases filed against The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and
The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (collectively referred to herein as
NASDAQ) alleging technical and other trading-related errors by
NASDAQ in connection with our IPO, were ordered centralized for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  In a series
of rulings in 2013 and 2014, the court denied our motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action and granted our
motions to dismiss the derivative actions against our directors
and certain of our officers.  On July 24, 2015, the court of
appeals affirmed the dismissal of the derivative actions.  On
December 11, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the consolidated securities action.  On April 14,
2017, we filed a motion for summary judgment.  Trial is scheduled
to begin on October 23, 2017."

Facebook, Inc. provides various products to connect and share
through mobile devices, personal computers, and other surfaces
worldwide.  It was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Menlo
Park, California.


FACEBOOK INC: Sept. 26 Hearing in Class C Reclassification Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is scheduled to begin on September 26, 2017, for the
consolidated class action lawsuit styled In re Facebook, Inc.
Class C Reclassification Litig., C.A. No. 12286-VCL, according to
Facebook, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed on July 27, 2017, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The Company said, "On April 27, 2016, we announced a proposal to
create a new class of non-voting capital stock (Class C capital
stock) and our intention to declare and pay a dividend of two
shares of Class C capital stock for each outstanding share of
Class A and Class B common stock (the Reclassification).
Following our announcement of the Reclassification, beginning on
April 29, 2016, multiple purported class action lawsuits were
filed on behalf of our stockholders in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against us, certain of our board of directors, and Mark
Zuckerberg.  The lawsuits have been consolidated under the caption
In re Facebook, Inc. Class C Reclassification Litig., C.A. No.
12286-VCL, and the consolidated complaint generally alleges that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the Reclassification.  Among other remedies, these lawsuits seek
to enjoin the Reclassification as well as unspecified money
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.  Trial is scheduled to begin
on September 26, 2017.  We believe that the lawsuits are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted."

Facebook, Inc. provides various products to connect and share
through mobile devices, personal computers, and other surfaces
worldwide.  It was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Menlo
Park, California.


FLUOR CORP: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harry Pennington III, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Fluor Corporation, Fluor Enterprises, Inc.
and Scana Corporation, Case No. 0:17-cv-02094-JMC (D.S.C., August
8, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide
60 days' advance written notice of termination as required by the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act").

Fluor Corporation operates an engineering and construction firm
headquartered in Irving, Texas.

Scana Corporation operates an energy-based holding company, based
in Cayce, South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lucy C. Sanders, Esq.
      BLOODGOOD & SANDERS, LLC
      242 Mathis Ferry Road, Suite 201
      Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 972-0313

         - and -

      Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
      Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000


FORD MOTOR: Persad Sues Over Defective HVAC System in Explorers
---------------------------------------------------------------
SURESH PERSAD, DANIEL G. WRIGHT and ROBERT S. DRUMMOND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:17-cv-12599-TGB-SDD (E.D. Mich.,
August 9, 2017), is brought on behalf of those who purchased,
leased or own a Class Vehicle, for the Defendant's alleged breach
of express and implied warranties, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and unfair trade practices,
concerning a known defect in thousands of vehicles sold in the
United States.

The affected vehicles are 2016 and 2017 model year Ford Explorers.
The Class Vehicles include a defective exhaust and Heating,
Ventilation, and Air Conditioning system that allows exhaust odor
and gases, including carbon monoxide -- an odorless, toxic gas, to
enter the passenger compartment of the vehicles while in use,
according to the complaint.  The Plaintiffs contend that the
defect exposes them and Class members to noxious gases, such as
carbon monoxide, when the vehicles are in use and creates a clear
safety hazard.

Ford Motor Company is a Delaware corporation, with its corporate
headquarters located in Dearborn, Michigan.  Ford designs,
engineers, manufactures, markets and sells vehicles throughout the
United States, through its network of authorized motor vehicle
dealers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  dal@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  pmuhic@ktmc.com
                  ebarlieb@ktmc.com


FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Appeal in "Agrawal" Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal is still pending in the Supreme Court of Ohio related to
a class certification ruling in the case Ford Motor Credit Company
v. Sudesh Agrawal, according to Ford Motor's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017.

On January 18, 2011, a state trial court judge in Cuyahoga County,
Ohio certified a nationwide class action with an Ohio subclass in
a counterclaim arising out of a collection action.  Class
claimants allege breach of contract, fraud, and statutory
violations for Ford Credit's lease-end wear and use charges.
Class claimants allege that the standard applied by Ford Credit in
determining the condition of vehicles at lease-end is different
than the standard set forth in claimants' leases.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, affirmed
nationwide class certification and certification of an Ohio
subclass.  The Company appealed, and on December 17, 2013, the
Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded
the case for further proceedings.

On March 13, 2014, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court
order certifying the classes and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

On September 28, 2015, the trial court re-certified a nationwide
class action with an Ohio subclass. The Company appealed, and on
September 22, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court
order certifying the classes and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

On April 24, 2017, the claimant filed an appeal to the Supreme
Court of Ohio.  On May 23, 2017, the Company filed a response.

Ford Motor Credit Company LLC, through its subsidiaries, provides
various automotive financing products to and through automotive
dealers worldwide.  The Company was founded in 1959 and is
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.  Ford Motor Credit Company
LLC is a subsidiary of Ford Holdings LLC.


GARNETT STATION: Love Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages and Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN LOVE, KIERRA LEE and JANEEN ACEY, Individually and on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and
former employees v. GARNETT STATION PARTNERS, LLC, A Delaware
Limited Liability Company, CAMBRIDGE FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, MIRABILE INVESTMENT
CORPORATION, a Tennessee Corporation, and, RAY MEEKS, TIM FURR,
JOSEPH MIRABILE, MATT PERELMAN, ALEX SLOANE, and CHRIS SCHNIEPP,
Individually, Case No. 2:17-cv-02572 (W.D. Tenn., August 9, 2017),
is brought as a collective action for wage theft under the Fair
Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid straight time wages and
unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former
employees, classified as hourly-paid Assistant Managers and
salaried Assistant Managers.

Garnett Station Partners, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal executive office located in Bartlett,
in Shelby County, Tennessee.  Garnett Station has a portfolio of
companies that includes MAACO auto paint and body franchises,
Fridababy.

Cambridge Franchise Holdings, LLC is Delaware limited liability
company with its principal executive office located in Bartlett.
Cambridge Franchise currently owns and operates 120 Burger King
restaurants.

Mirabile Investment Corporation, doing business as MIC, is a
Tennessee limited liability company with its principal executive
office located in Bartlett.  The Individual Defendants are
partners, officers, managers or employees of the Corporate
Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate approximately 120 Burger King
restaurants.  The Defendants owned and operated Burger King
franchised restaurants in several states across the United States,
including Tennessee, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky and Indiana during all times relevant
to this Collective Action Complaint.  The primary function of
Defendants' Burger King franchised restaurants is to prepare and
sell food and beverage items to its customers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  jholt@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Kleszynski" Securities Suit Over Duramax
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT KLESZYNSKI, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, DANIEL F. AKERSON,
MARY T. BARRA, DANIEL AMMANN, and CHARLES K. STEVENS III, Case No.
2:17-cv-12565-VAR-APP (E.D.N.Y., August 8, 2017), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose that:

   (1) the Company installed three distinct defeat devices in
       over 700,000 trucks with Duramax diesel engines from 2011
       to 2016 to beat emissions tests in the U.S.;

   (2) in turn, these trucks emit up to five times the legal
       limit of nitrogen oxide pollutants; and

   (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were
       materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The defeat devises allow the vehicle to meet emissions standards
in the test temperature range, while allowing two to five times
the legal amount of nitrogen-oxide pollutants to be emitted at all
other times, says the complaint.

On the revelation of the installed defeat devices, shares of the
Company fell $0.60 per share or over 1.8% from its previous
closing price to close at $32.60 per share on May 25, 2017,
thereby damaging investors.

GM designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks, crossovers, and
automobile parts worldwide.  The Company is incorporated in
Delaware and its principal executive offices are located in
Detroit, Michigan.  The Individual Defendants are the senior
officers and directors of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com


GOLD POINT: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, "Solares" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HUMBERTO SOLARES, an individual; on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. GOLD POINT TRANSPORTATION, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive Case No.
BC671447 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., August 7, 2017), is
an action for wage and labor violations arising out of, among
other things, the Defendant's misclassification of the Plaintiff
and other employees and failure to pay wages, overtime, and to
provide meal and rest breaks to its employee drivers and
crewmembers.

Gold Point Transportation, Inc., is a California corporation
licensed to do, and is doing, business in the state of California.
Gold Point provides logistics services. The Company offers
trucking, express services, custom cargo handling, and warehousing
solutions.  The Plaintiff is currently ignorant of the true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ophir J. Bitton, Esq.
          Emma D. Enriquez, Esq.
          BITTON & ASSOCIATES
          7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90046
          Telephone: (310) 356-1006
          Facsimile: (818) 524-1224
          E-mail: ophir@bittonlaw.com
                  emma@emmaenriquez.com


GUIDANCE SOFTWARE: Faces "Lazzaro" Suit in C.D. of Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guidance Software,
Inc.  The case is styled as Bryan Lazzaro, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Guidance
Software, Inc., Robert Van Schoonenberg, Reynolds C. Bish, Max
Carnecchia, John Colbert, Patrick Dennis, Michael McConnell, Wade
W. Loo, Open Text Corporation, Galileo Acquisition Sub Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06035 (C.D. Cal., August 14, 2017).

Guidance Software, Inc. is a public company founded in 1997.
Headquartered in Pasadena, Calif., the company develops and
provides software solutions for digital investigations primarily
in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the
Asia/Pacific Rim. Guidance Software has offices in Brazil,
Chicago, Houston, New York City, San Francisco, Singapore, United
Kingdom and Washington, D.C. and employs approximately 371
employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


H-MART COMPANIES: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Interest
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo A. Romero-Gomez, an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. H-Mart Companies, Inc., H Mart,
Torrance, LLC, California corporations and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC671525 (Cal. Super., August 9,
2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress
for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment and failure to maintain time-keeping
records, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, and
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California
Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

H Mart Companies, Inc. is an Asian grocery store chain based in
New Jersey.  Romero Gomez worked as cook for H Mart grocery store
located in Torrance, California from approximately May 2016 to
December 2016. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kane Moon, Esq.
      Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
      MOON & YANG, APC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 232-3128
      Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
      E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
              justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces "Pecanha" Suit Over Deodorant False Ad
------------------------------------------------------------
Makinde Pecanha and Shaun Ray Bell, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-04517-LB (N.D. Cal., August 8, 2017), is brought
on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased
JASON(R) brand deodorant sticks, that were falsely marketed by the
Defendant as "natural" when, in fact, they contain unnatural or
synthetic ingredients.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. operates a food company whose main
focus is foods and personal care products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. L.
      Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Joel D. Smith, Esq.
      Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
              jsmith@bursor.com
              ykrivoshey@bursor.com

         - and -

      Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
      NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
      600 W. Broadway, Suite 700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619)272-7014
      Facsimile: (619)330-1819
      E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: ERISA Lawsuit Still Ongoing in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation disclosed in its Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2017, that an ERISA class action
lawsuit remains pending in New York court.

In May 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
related to the company's October 2014 announcement that it was
divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology business,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA").  The company, management's Retirement Plans Committee,
and three current or former IBM executives were named as
defendants.

On September 7, 2016, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.

On October 21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
dropping the company as a defendant.  The matter remains pending
in the United States District Court.

International Business Machines Corporation provides information
technology (IT) products and services worldwide. Its Cognitive
Solutions segment includes Watson, a cognitive computing platform
that interacts in natural language, processes big data, and learns
from interactions with people and computers.  The Company was
formerly known as Computing-Tabulating-Recording Co. and changed
its name to International Business Machines Corporation in 1924.
It was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Armonk, New York.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: "Huerta" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned GEORGE HUERTA, on his own behalf and all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL
PAPER COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01155-SDM-MAP (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a Fair Credit
Reporting Act case as a class action for this Background Check
Class of similarly-situated persons:

   "all International Paper Company employees and job applicants
   who applied for or worked in a position at International Paper
   Company in the United States and who were the subject of a
   consumer report that was procured by International Paper
   Company within two years of the filing of this complaint
   through the date of final judgment and as to whom
   International Paper Company used the employment application
   and purported disclosure and authorization form."

Defendant routinely obtains and uses information in consumer
reports to conduct background checks on prospective and existing
employees, and frequently relies on such information, in whole or
in part, for employment purposes. While the use of consumer report
information for employment purposes is not unlawful, it is subject
to strict disclosure and authorization requirements under the
FCRA. The Defendant willfully violated the FCRA in multiple ways.
In terms of Plaintiff's first class claim, Defendant violated 15
U.S.C. by procuring consumer reports on Plaintiff and other
putative class members for employment purposes without first
making proper disclosures in the format required by the statute.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wI2G8Pdz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 North Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257 0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


INVUITY INC: California Stockholder Class Action Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Invuity, Inc. continues to defend itself against a stockholder
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on July 26, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On February 27, 2017, a purported stockholder class action titled
Paciga v. Invuity, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01005, was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and
its Chief Financial Officer.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements to investors regarding the Company's business
prospects.  The complaint purports to assert claims for violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers
of the Company's common stock between July 19, 2016 and November
3, 2016, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney fees
and costs, and other relief.

On May 30, 2017, the Court appointed Mike Paciga as lead
plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff had until July 31, 2017 to either
file an amended complaint or designate the current complaint as
the operative complaint.

Invuity said, "The Company intends to defend the litigation
vigorously.  Based on information currently available, the Company
has determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of
possible loss is not reasonably estimable."

Invuity, Inc., a medical technology company, develops various
surgical devices to address various surgical procedures in the
United States.  The Company integrates its intelligent photonics
technology platform into its single-use and reusable advanced
surgical devices to address various critical intracavity
illumination and visualization challenges.  The Company was
formerly known as Spotlight Surgical, Inc. and changed its name to
Invuity, Inc. in 2007.  Invuity, Inc. was incorporated in 2004 and
is based in San Francisco, California.


ITG INSURANCE: Accused by "Northrup" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN NORTHRUP, Individually and on behalf of a Class of Similarly
Situated Individuals v. ITG INSURANCE AGENCY LLC, INDEPENDENT
TRUCKERS GROUP, AND HALLMARK FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No.
8:17-cv-01890-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., August 9, 2017), accuses the
Defendants of negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff
through SMS or "text" messages on his cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby,
invading his privacy.

ITG Insurance Agency LLC is a Texas limited liability company with
a principal address in Plano, Texas.  Independent Truckers Group
is a company with headquarters in Addison, Texas.  Hallmark
Financial Services, Inc., is a Texas corporation with a principal
place of business in Fort Worth, Texas.  Hallmark owns and
operates multiple companies out of the Addison Road address,
including Independent Truckers Group and other companies that sell
insurance and other services, targeting particular industries.

The Defendants operate under the names "Independent Truckers
Group," "ITG Trucking," and "ITG Insurance Agency."  They market
insurance and other services to trucking companies throughout the
country from their headquarters in Addison, Texas.  They operate
the Web site http://www.itgtrucking.com/[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CORY FEIN LAW FIRM
          712 Main St., #800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (281) 254-7717
          Facsimile: (530) 748-0601
          E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com


KELLOGG SALES: Must Face Class Action Over Cereal Labels
--------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the maker of Raisin Bran and Frosted Mini-Wheats must answer a
legal challenge in federal court in San Jose, California, saying
Kellogg's breakfast cereals are in fact unhealthy and contribute
to obesity and disease because they are laced with extra sugar, in
the wake of a 64-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh who
sits in a jurisdiction sometimes referred to by its own judges as
"the food court."

Koh granted in part and denied in part Kellogg's motion to dismiss
a class action claiming several of its cereals and breakfast bars
are labeled as healthy when they contain enough sugar to
compromise the health of people who eat it regularly.

"The court finds that plaintiff has adequately alleged that
defendant's products are unhealthy due to excess added sugar for
the purposes of the instant motion to dismiss," Koh wrote in the
64-page ruling.

Plaintiff Stephen Hadley says he has eaten Kellogg's products in
the morning for several years, content in his belief that he was
eating healthy options for breakfast. However, he claims he
recently discovered that the amount of sugar the company puts in
several of its products puts him at greater risk of contracting
diseases related to excessive consumption of sugary foods --
including metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular
disease, liver disease, obesity, inflammation, high cholesterol,
hypertension, Alzheimer's disease, and some cancers.

The product lines in question include Kellogg's Raisin Bran,
Frosted Mini-Wheats, Smart Start-Original Antioxidants, Crunchy
Nut, Nutri-Grain Cereal Bars, Nutri-grain Soft-Baked Breakfast
Bars, Nutri-Grain Oat & Harvest Bars, and Nutri-Grain Harvest
Hearty Breakfast Bars. These lines also have variants, bringing
the total number of products involved in the lawsuit to 29.

Hadley says the products contain anywhere from 18 to 40 percent of
a person's daily recommended value of sugar, beyond the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration guideline of 10 percent.

Kellogg argued Hadley doesn't know how much sugar is in each
product, and that advertising related to the health benefits of
its products are either true or harmless puffery common to
advertising language.  Specifically, Kellogg argued the FDA's
establishment of the 10 percent rule gave the company safe harbor
because they have manufactured their products to hew closely to
the guidelines.

But Koh said this adherence to federal dietary guidelines does not
protect the company from litigation.

Kellogg next turned to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of
1990, which the company said pre-empts any claims filed under
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and other state-related
laws cited in the original lawsuit.

Koh said that certain language the company used relates to matters
determined by the FDA and therefore are not bound by state laws in
California, but that other claims made by the company could be
adjudicated under state laws.

"The three claims identified in the parties' briefing, the court
finds that the No High Fructose Corn Syrup and Heart Healthy
claims are not pre-empted at this stage of the litigation," Koh
wrote in the ruling.

Finally, Koh agreed with Kellogg that some of the language
identified by Hadley is hyperbole common to advertising, but said
some of the assertions made by Kellogg do not amount to sales
puffery.

"The court finds that the 'unbelievably nutritious' and
'positively nutritious' statements are puffery, but that the
'nutritious,' "essential nutrients," and 'wholesome' statements
cannot be dismissed as puffery in the instant motion to dismiss,"
Koh wrote.

Koh dismisses claims relating to 5 of the 29 products with
prejudice, finding the statements made in relation to those
products are puffery. However, claims made pertaining to the
remaining 24 products -- including Raisin Bran, Frosted Mini
Wheats and several lines of breakfast bars -- will move forward.

"The court denies defendant's motion to dismiss as to the above-
listed 24 products because these products contain at least one
statement that the court found was not pre-empted, non-misleading,
or puffery as a matter of law," Koh wrote.

The case is captioned, STEPHEN HADLEY, Plaintiff, v. KELLOGG SALES
COMPANY, Defendant, Case 5:16-cv-04955-LHK(N.D. Cal., August 10,
2017).


KIA MOTORS: Engines Have Poor Oil Flow, "Stanczak" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in Santa Ana, Calif. claims Kia Motors' Theta
2.0- and 2.4-liter direct injection engines have poor oil flow
that causes stalling and catastrophic engine failure.

The case is captioned, CHRISTOPHER STANCZAK and ROSE CREPS, on
behalf of Themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants. Case 8:17-cv-01365 (C.D. Cal. August 8,
2017).

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

     Richard D. McCune, Esq.
     David C. Wright, Esq.
     MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
     3281 Guasti Road, Suite 100
     Ontario, CA 91761
     Telephone: (909) 557-1250
     Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
     E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
             dcw@mccunewright.com


L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Missouri Court OKs Settlement of Consumer Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri has
approved a settlement to resolve five class action consumer
lawsuits against L3 Technologies, Inc., according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filed on July 27, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

During 2015 and 2016, five putative class action complaints
against the Company were filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri alleging that the Company's
EoTech business unit knowingly sold defective holographic weapons
sights (Andrew Tyler Foster, et al., v. L-3 Communications EoTech,
Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15 CV 03519 BCW).

In October 2016, the parties reached a settlement in principle to
resolve the allegations in these cases.

On July 7, 2017, the court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement and dismissing the class action
lawsuits with prejudice.

As of June 30, 2017, the Company has accrued the amount deemed
appropriate for this matter.

L3 Technologies, Inc. provides aerospace systems, and
communication and electronic systems and products used on military
and commercial platforms in the United States and internationally.
It operates in three segments: Electronic Systems, Aerospace
Systems, and Communication Systems.  It was formerly known as L-3
Communications Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to L3
Technologies, Inc. in December 2016.  The Company was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


L3 TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Ruling on Securities Suit Deal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
L3 Technologies, Inc. is awaiting court action on the final
approval of the proposed settlement of a securities class action
against the Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
July 27, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of
its officers.  These cases were consolidated into a single action
on October 24, 2014.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed
in the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further
amended and restated on March 13, 2015.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws
related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the
Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses.

On March 30, 2016, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all
claims against the Company's officers and allowed the claim
against the Company to proceed to discovery.

On December 20, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to resolve this matter for US$34.5 million, subject to
the execution of definitive settlement documents and final court
approval.

On February 22, 2017, the parties executed a final settlement
agreement.

On March 10, 2017, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement.  In accordance with the settlement agreement, the
Company's insurers have paid the settlement amount into an escrow
account that will be used to fully fund the settlement subject to
the terms of the settlement agreement.

A fairness hearing for the proposed settlement was scheduled for
August 10, 2017.

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

L3 Technologies, Inc. provides aerospace systems, and
communication and electronic systems and products used on military
and commercial platforms in the United States and internationally.
It operates in three segments: Electronic Systems, Aerospace
Systems, and Communication Systems.  It was formerly known as L-3
Communications Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to L3
Technologies, Inc. in December 2016.  The Company was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces 401(k) Plan Class Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------
L3 Technologies, Inc. still defends in a putative class action
regarding a Company-sponsored 401(k) plan, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 27, 2017, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

On June 24, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of participants in and beneficiaries of a Company-sponsored
401(k) plan.  An amended complaint was filed on September 29,
2016.

The amended complaint alleged that certain of the Company's
officers breached fiduciary duties owed under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by making the Company's stock
available as an investment alternative under the plan during a
period prior to the 2014 disclosure of misconduct and accounting
errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment.
The complaint sought, among other things, monetary damages,
equitable relief, pre-judgment interest, and fees and expenses.

On December 2, 2016, the matter was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice.

On January 27, 2017, a new putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of the same 401(k) participants and beneficiaries,
asserting substantially similar claims against the same officers
of the Company.

On March 28, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the action.

L3 Technologies said, "The Company believes the suit lacks merit
and intends to defend against it vigorously.  The Company is
unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any,
that may be incurred in connection with this matter because the
proceedings are in their early stages."

L3 Technologies, Inc. provides aerospace systems, and
communication and electronic systems and products used on military
and commercial platforms in the United States and internationally.
It operates in three segments: Electronic Systems, Aerospace
Systems, and Communication Systems.  It was formerly known as L-3
Communications Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to L3
Technologies, Inc. in December 2016.  The Company was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


LEGEND SENIOR: "Weaver" Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DEBRA WEAVER, DONNA KILGORE, CHRIS TOWNSEND,
CINDY DIMIT, KAREN WALKER, ANDRE HENDERSON, RODNEY NESBITT, CATHY
COOVER, BOUCHAID KBABRA, KIM PRAYTOR, TONYA HODGES-HARRIS, TERESA
OOTEN, SCOTT SLEMP, VALERIE MORRISON and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. LEGEND
SENIOR LIVING, LLC, and TIM BUCHANAN, the Defendants, Case No.
5:16-cv-01230-R (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
conditionally certify a collective action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act on behalf of the following for three years
prior to the filing of this action:

     1. LPN Class - those employed as licensed practical nurses
        ("LPN") at Defendants' facilities;

     2. Maintenance Class - those employed as "Maintenance
        Directors" at Defendants' facilities; and

     3. Cook Class - those employed as "Culinary Directors" at
        Defendants' facilities.

The Plaintiffs also move the Court to approve the propose notice
and consent forms to be sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs, and
to order Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs in a readable
electronic data file format the names, dates of employment, last
known mailing addresses, e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of
those similarly situated within 14 days of the date of the Court's
Order, and for such other and further relief the Court deems just
and proper under the circumstances.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward L. White, Esq.
          Kerry D. Green, Esq.
          EDWARD L. WHITE P.C.
          829 East 33rd Street
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Telephone: (405) 810 8188
          Facsimile: (405) 608 0971
          E-mail: ed@edwhitelaw.com
                  kerry@edwhitelaw.com

               - and -

          Jacque Pearsall, Esq.
          2548 NW Expressway, Suite 102
          Oklahoma City, OK 73112
          Telephone: (405) 609-6601
          Facsimile: (405) 673.5785
          E-mail: jacquepearsall@gmail.com

               - and -

          Scsott F. Brockman, Esq.
          BROCKMAN LAW, PLLC
          10601 S. Western, Suite 117
          Oklahoma City, OK 73170
          Telephone: (405) 703 4429
          Facsimile: (405) 703 4499
          E-mail: scott@brockmanlawpllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gaylan Towle II, Esq.
          Mary P. Snyder, Esq.
          Tanya S. Bryant, Esq.
          CROWE & DUNLEVY
          324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          E-mail: gaylan.towle@crowedunlevy.com
                  mary.snyder@crowedunlevy.com
                  tanya.bryant@crowedunlevy.com


LEIDOS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Oshikoya" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ayodeji Oshikoya, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Leidos Health, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00896-
LMB-MSN (E.D. Va., August 8, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek.

Leidos Health, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
providing information technology educational services for the
healthcare industry across the country. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
      Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
      3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Telephone: (703) 424-7572
      Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
      E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
              aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

         - and -

      David M. Blanchard, Esq.
      BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
      221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Telephone: (734) 929-4313
      E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com

        - and -

      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      Camille Fundora, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
              elechtzin@bm.net
              cfundora@bm.net

         - and -

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      Olena Savytska, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
      E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
              osavytska@llrlaw.com

LG ELECTRONICS: Montanye Sues Over Faulty Compressors in Fridges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MONTANYE, JASON SABER, JIM and JENI ONEY, h/w, and KELLEY
HAGGARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-05882
(D.N.J., August 8, 2017), is brought on behalf of consumers, who
purchased LG refrigerators that suffer from an alleged undisclosed
defect, which causes widespread compressor and related component
part failures early in the life of the refrigerator.

LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its
principal place of business located in Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.  LG markets, distributes and sells the Refrigerators
throughout the United States, including in New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Alison G. Gushue, Esq.
          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
                  agg@chimicles.com
                  awf@chimicles.com


LORD & J: Fails to Pay Overtime to Car Cleaners, Rivera Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cristobal Mendez Rivera, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Lord & J Detailing, and Joabe S.
Demelo, Case No. 1:17-cv-04664 (E.D.N.Y., August 9, 2017), alleges
that the Defendants failed to pay car cleaners proper overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Lord & J is a corporation located in Cliffside Park, New Jersey.
Lord & J is contracted by BMW of Brooklyn to clean and service its
cars.  Joabe S. Demelo is an owner, partner, officer or manager of
Lord & J.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com


MASTERCARD INC: Has US$706M Liability Reserve for Merchant Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 27,
2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that Mastercard had accrued
a liability of US$706 million as a reserve for both the merchant
class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant
cases.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions.  Taken together, the claims in
the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or
conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of
these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state
law.  The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard,
Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the
price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules
(including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws
and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and
services.  The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in
MDL No. 1720.  The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint that seeks treble damages.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the
"IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between
Mastercard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO:
(1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent
conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted
to release, without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to
assess them for Mastercard's litigation liabilities.  The class
plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including,
but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.

In February 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A.  Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions.  The agreements
provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities
which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions
may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse
judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant
litigations.  Among a number of scenarios addressed by the
agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa
parties, the financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard
would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement.  In the
event of a settlement involving only Mastercard and the financial
institutions with respect to their issuance of Mastercard cards,
Mastercard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such
settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs.  The settlements included cash payments that
were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus
judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above.
Mastercard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term
reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify
certain of its business practices, including its "no surcharge"
rule.  The court granted final approval of the settlement in
December 2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  In
June 2016, the court of appeals vacated the class action
certification, reversed the settlement approval and sent the case
back to the district court for further proceedings.  The court of
appeals' ruling was based primarily on whether the merchants were
adequately represented by counsel in the settlement.

Prior to the reversal of the settlement approval, merchants
representing slightly more than 25% of the Mastercard and Visa
purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out of the
class settlement.  Mastercard had anticipated that most of the
larger merchants who opted out of the settlement would initiate
separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out
complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in
various jurisdictions.  Mastercard has executed settlement
agreements with a number of opt-out merchants.  Mastercard
believes these settlement agreements are not impacted by the
ruling of the court of appeals.  The defendants have consolidated
all of these matters (except for two state court actions) in front
of the same federal district court that approved the merchant
class settlement.  In July 2014, the district court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss the opt-out merchant complaints for
failure to state a claim.  Deposition discovery commenced in
December 2016.

As of June 30, 2017, Mastercard had accrued a liability of US$706
million as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and
the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases.  As of June 30,
2017 and December 31, 2016, Mastercard had US$544 million and
US$543 million, respectively, in a qualified cash settlement fund
related to the merchant class litigation and classified as
restricted cash on its consolidated balance sheet.

The Company said, "Mastercard believes the reserve for both the
merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out
merchants represents its best estimate of its probable liabilities
in these matters at June 30, 2017.  The portion of the accrued
liability relating to both the opt-out merchants and the merchant
class litigation settlement does not represent an estimate of a
loss, if any, if the matters were litigated to a final outcome.
Mastercard cannot estimate the potential liability if that were to
occur."

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides
transaction processing and other payment-related products and
services in the United States and internationally.  It offers
payment solutions and services under the MasterCard, Maestro, and
Cirrus brands.  Mastercard Incorporated was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Parties in Canadian Suit Reach Settlement Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q filed on July 27,
2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that it has entered into a
class settlement agreement with Canadian merchants that requires
Mastercard to make cash payment and modify its "no surcharge"
rule.  The deal is subject to court approval in each applicable
province.

In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants.  The
suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard's
favor) concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of-
sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no
surcharge" rules.  The Quebec suit sought compensatory and
punitive damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive
relief.

In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action
lawsuits were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against
Mastercard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial
institutions.  The British Columbia suit sought compensatory
damages in unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit sought
compensatory damages of US$5 billion on the basis of alleged
conspiracy and various alleged breaches of the Canadian
Competition Act.  Additional purported class action complaints
were commenced in Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that
largely mirror those in the other suits.

In June 2017, Mastercard entered into a class settlement agreement
to resolve all of the Canadian class action litigation.  The
settlement, which is subject to court approval in each applicable
province, requires Mastercard to make cash payment and modify its
"no surcharge" rule.

During the first quarter of 2017, the Company recorded a provision
for litigation of US$15 million related to this matter.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides
transaction processing and other payment-related products and
services in the United States and internationally.  It offers
payment solutions and services under the MasterCard, Maestro, and
Cirrus brands.  Mastercard Incorporated was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: ATM Surcharge Complaints Proceed to Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated continues to defend against the ATM Non-
Discrimination Rule Surcharge Complaints, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 27, 2017, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both
Mastercard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals
that operate in the United States with the discretion to determine
the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate.
Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated Section 1
of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to
charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions
processed over Mastercard's and Visa's respective networks that
are not greater than the surcharge for transactions over other
networks accepted at the same ATM.  Plaintiffs seek both
injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages they
claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations and
their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have
not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect
damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").  The claims in these actions largely mirror
the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although
these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM
services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-
bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the
alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys'
fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they
allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of
dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints.  In February 2013, the
district court granted Mastercard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's
order in August 2015 and sent the case back for further
proceedings.

In March 2016, certain of the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators
Complaint filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction
enjoining the enforcement of the nondiscrimination rules pending
the outcome of the litigation.

In May 2017, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion and the case
is now proceeding to discovery.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides
transaction processing and other payment-related products and
services in the United States and internationally.  It offers
payment solutions and services under the MasterCard, Maestro, and
Cirrus brands.  Mastercard Incorporated was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Still Defends U.S. Liability Shift Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated continues to defend itself in the U.S.
Liability Shift Litigation, which has been transferred to New
York, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 27, 2017,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017.

In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was
filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard,
Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"),
EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants")
engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present
transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance
with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the
"EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and
California law.

Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks
for which class members became liable as a result of the EMV
Liability Shift on October 1, 2015.  The plaintiffs seek treble
damages, attorney's fees and costs and an injunction against
future violations of governing law, and the defendants have filed
a motion to dismiss.

In September 2016, the court denied the Network Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and
the Bank Defendants.

In May 2017, the court transferred the case to New York so that
discovery could be coordinated with an ongoing U.S. merchant class
interchange litigation.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides
transaction processing and other payment-related products and
services in the United States and internationally.  It offers
payment solutions and services under the MasterCard, Maestro, and
Cirrus brands.  Mastercard Incorporated was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MDL 2437: Wallboard Price Fixing Conspiracy Claims Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation still defends itself against litigations,
including a class action in Canada, related to a conspiracy in
fixing wallboard prices, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In the first quarter of 2015, USG, United States Gypsum Company,
L&W Supply Corporation, and 7 other wallboard manufacturers were
named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in federal court in
California by 12 homebuilders alleging that since at least
September 2011, U.S. wallboard manufacturers conspired to fix and
raise the price of gypsum wallboard sold in the United States and
to effectuate the alleged conspiracy by ending the practice of
providing job quotes on wallboard.

The lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the title In re:
Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437.

In the second quarter of 2016, the Court dismissed with prejudice
the portions of the homebuilders' complaint alleging a conspiracy
in 2014 and 2015, ruling that there were insufficient factual
allegations to allow such a claim to go forward.

The homebuilders' claims alleging a conspiracy prior to 2014 have
not been dismissed, and the case proceeds as to those claims.  USG
has agreed to defend and indemnify L&W Supply Corporation with
regard to this matter.

Beginning in the third quarter of 2013, class action lawsuits
making similar allegations with regard to Canada were filed in
Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia courts on behalf of
purchasers of wallboard in Canada and naming USG Corporation,
United States Gypsum Company, CGC Inc., and other wallboard
manufacturers as defendants.

The Company said, "We believe that the cost, if any, of resolving
the homebuilders' lawsuit and Canadian class action litigation
will not have a material effect on our results of operations,
financial position or cash flows."

USG Corporation, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells
building materials worldwide.  The Company distributes its
products through building material dealers, home improvement
centers and other retailers, specialty wallboard distributors, and
contractors.  USG Corporation was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


MDL 2785: "Nordstrum" Class Suit Consolidated in Epipen MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit dated April 7, 2017, styled Angie
Nordstrum and Carly Bowersock, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Mylan Inc., Mylan Specialty L.P.,
Pfizer, Inc., King Pharmaceuticals LLC and Meridian Medical
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02401, was transferred on
August 8, 2017 from the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02451-DDC-TJJ to the proceeding.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In
re: Epipen (Epinepherine Injection USP) Marketing, Sales Practices
and Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2785.

Plaintiffs Angie Nordstrum and Carly Bowersock, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, files their Complaint
for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton
Antitrust Act against the Defendants Mylan Inc., Mylan Specialty
L.P., Pfizer, Inc., King Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Meridian Medical
Technologies, Inc.

Mylan Inc. is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the
world, has its principal place of business at 1000 Mylan
Boulevard, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317. [BN]

Mylan Specialty L.P. is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused
on the development, manufacturing and marketing of prescription
drug products for the treatment of a respiratory diseases, life-
threatening allergic reactions including EpiPen and EpiPen Jr.
auto-injectors, general anesthesia and psychiatric disorders.

Pfizer, Inc. is a global pharmaceutical company headquartered at
235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017.

King Pharmaceuticals LLC is in the business of developing and
manufacturing medicines and technologies primarily in
specialty-driven markets, including neuroscience, hospital and
acute care medicines.

Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary
of King, with its principal place of business at 6350 Stevens
Forrest Road, Suite 301, Columbia, Maryland 21046. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 BECKER FARM ROAD
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744

The Defendant is represented by:

      Arnold B. Calmann, Esq.
      Jeffrey S. Soos, Esq.
      SAIBER LLC
      One Gateway Center
      10th Floor
      Newark, NJ 07102-5311
      Telephone: (973) 622-3333
      Facsimile: (973) 622-3349
      E-mail: abc@saiber.com
              jsoos@saiber.com


MEDITAB SOFTWARE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC, INC., a
West Virginia corporation, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v.
MEDITAB SOFTWARE, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-03822 (S.D. W.Va.), Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a
class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint
Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JkyM6P03

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart Calwell, Esq.
          D. Christopher Hedges, Esq.
          David H. Carriger, Esq.
          THE CALWELL PRACTICE, LC
          500 Randolph Street
          Charleston, WV 25302
          Telephone: (304) 343 4323
          Facsimile: (304) 344 3684
          E-mail: scalwell@calwelllaw.com
                  chedges@calwelllaw.com
                  dcarriger@calwelllaw.com

               - and -

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


MERIDIAN HEALTH: "Slaughter" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Kim Slaughter, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Meridian Health Plan of Illinois, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-05846 (N.D. Ill., August 10, 2017), seeks unpaid back wages
due, liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid
compensation, costs of this action including attorneys' fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, service payment to the
Plaintiff for services provided and such other and further legal
or equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Meridian Health Plan -- https://corp.mhplan.com/ -- is a
government healthcare insurance service organization with
locations in Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky.
Defendant employed Plaintiff and the Class Members as "Care
Coordinators," entertaining members, asking standardized questions
to collect data for care assessments. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com

             - and -

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      J. Forester, Esq.
      Travis Gasper, Esq.
      LEE &BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Email: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
             forester@l-b-law.com
             gasper@l-b-law.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Olson Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JACQUELINE OLSON, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND
CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01135-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order to certify a class, appointing the Plaintiff as
its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks 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=lmnChjWl

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


MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces "Crocombe" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Funding,
LLC. The case is styled as Jeroleum Crocombe, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Funding,
LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-04751 (E.D. N.Y., August 14, 2017).

Midland Funding LLC is one of the nation's largest buyers of
unpaid debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MINEBEA MITSUMI: Faces Class Suit on Competition Laws in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minebea Mitsumi Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F filed on July 26,
2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2017, that a class action suit has
been brought in Canada against the Company for the alleged
infringement of competition laws related to the trading of small-
sized ball bearing products, among others.

The Company said, "Depending on the outcome of this lawsuit,
Minebea Mitsumi may incur losses. However, Minebea Mitsumi can
neither measure the amount of said losses with sufficient
reliability at this time nor determine whether they will affect
Minebea Mitsumi's operating results or financial position.

"With respect to this class action suit, which remained
outstanding as of March 31, 2017, Minebea Mitsumi has not
recognized any provision for loss contingencies, as the conditions
for a provision have not been met."

Minebea Mitsumi Inc. manufactures and supplies machined
components, and electronic devices and components in China, Japan,
Thailand, Europe, the United States, and internationally. It
operates through three Segments: Machined Components, Electronic
Devices and Components, and Mitsumi business.

It serves customers in IT, telecommunications, aerospace,
automotive, home appliance, and other industries.  The Company was
formerly known as Minebea Co., Ltd. and changed its name to
Minebea Mitsumi Inc. in January 2017.  It was founded in 1951 and
is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.


MONOGRAM RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Hertz" Suit over Merger Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel W. Staples, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the proposed $3 billion merger of Monogram Residential Trust
and Greystar Real Estate Partners has prompted shareholders to
file a federal class action in Baltimore.

Filed in Maryland on Aug. 4, the 15-page complaint comes exactly a
month after the announcement that Greystar's new fund, Greystar
Growth and Income Fund LP, will acquire all of Monogram's
outstanding stock at $12 a share in an all-cash transaction.

Claiming that Monogram breached its fiduciary duty to
shareholders, lead plaintiff Bradley Hertz says the company and
its board of directors "issued materially incomplete and
misleading disclosures in the Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the proposed transaction."

Dated July 28, the proxy "is rendered misleading by the omission
of critical information concerning the company's expected future
value as a standalone entity as evidenced by the company's
financial projections, and the financial analysis underlying the
fairness opinion provided by Morgan Stanley."

Hertz says the filing was designed to convince shareholders to
vote in favor of the deal.

As of June 30, 2017, Monogram had 167,031,843 shares of common
stock outstanding. According to an announcement of the merger,
Greystar's $12-a-share offer represents a premium of approximately
22 percent to Monogram's unaffected closing stock price on July 3,
2017 -- the last trading day prior to the public announcement of
the transaction.

With its principal executive offices in Plano, Texas, Monogram's
investment portfolio stretches across "49 multifamily communities
in 10 states comprising 13,674 apartment homes," according to the
complaint.

Monogram has not responded to an email requesting for comment.

The class wants an injunction to keep the deal from closing. They
are represented by Donald Enright with Levi & Korsinsky in
Washington.


NEO TECHNOLOGY: Illegally Released Workers IRS Forms, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kris Portier, Edward Snelgrove, Antonio Batalha, Kristine Tansil,
John Tansil, Jose Rivas, and Milton Manzano, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated employees and family
members v. NEO Technology Solutions, OnCore Manufacturing, LLC,
Natel Engineering Co, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-30111 (D. Mass.,
August 8, 2017), is an action for damages caused by NEO Tech's
negligent and unlawful release of the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement date for calendar year 2016
relating to approximately 1,400 of the Defendants' employees to
unknown cybercriminals.

The Defendants own and operate manufacturing and engineering
companies in California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts,
Nevada, Ohio, Tennessee, Mexico, and China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cristina P. Carrier, Esq.
      CRISTINA P. CARRIER, PC
      1380 Main St, Suite 413
      Springfield, MA 01103
      Telephone: (877) 628-7694
      Facsimile: (413) 895-5352
      E-mail: cristina@cristinapcarrier.com


NES EQUIPMENT: Faces State Mechanical Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NES Equipment
Services Corporation. The case is styled as State Mechanical
Services, LLC, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NES Equipment Services
Corporation, doing business as: NES Rentals, NES Rentals Holdings
and United Rentals (North America), Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-04724 (E.D. N.Y., August 11, 2017).

NES Equipment Services Corp., doing business as NES Rentals,
rents, distributes, and sells aerial lift equipment to industrial
and construction end-users in the United States. The company
offers boom lifts, boom trucks, industrial lifts, rough terrains,
cranes, personnel lifts, and scissor lifts; earthmoving and
general equipment, and scaffolding systems; and complementary
parts, supplies, and merchandise. It also provides repair,
maintenance, and emergency response services. The company was
formerly known as Falconite, Inc and changed its name to NES
Equipment Services Corp. in January 2001.[BN]


The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew J. Herman, Esq.
   Foote, Mielke, Chavez & O'Neil LLC
   10 West State Street, Suite 200
   Geneva, IL 60134
   Tel: (630) 232-7450
   Email: mjh@fmcolaw.com

      - and -

   Robert M. Foote, Esq.
   Foote, Mielke, Chavez & O'Neil LLC
   10 West State Street, #200
   Geneva, IL 60134
   Tel: (630) 232-7450
   Email: rmf@fmcolaw.com


NEW ENGLAND AUTO: Accused by "Gamble" Suit of Violating TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
HOPE GAMBLE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
NEW ENGLAND AUTO FINANCE, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-02979-LMM (N.D.
Ga., August 8, 2017), alleges that the Defendant routinely
violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an
automatic telephone dialing system to send non-emergency text
messages to numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service,
without prior express consent.

New England Auto Finance, Inc., is a New Hampshire corporation
with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.  The
Company is an automobile finance and payday loan company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
          THE NORCROSS LAW FIRM
          1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 175
          Norcross, GA 30093
          Telephone: (800) 994-9855
          Facsimile: (866) 929-2434
          E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com

               - and -

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com


NEW YORK: Mitchell Files Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andrew M. Cuomo, the
Governor of New York State. The case is styled as Dontie S.
Mitchell and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Andrew M.
Cuomo, Governor; sued in official capacity, Anthony J. Annucci
Acting Commissioner, sued in individual and official capacity,
Steven Racette, Superintendent, John Miller, Correction
Lieutenant, R. Wood, Corrections Sergeant, Robert J. Mahuta,
Correction Officer, Clinton Staff sued in individual and/or
official capacity, Napper Correction Officer, Clinton Staff sued
in individual and/or official capacity, Wells Correction Officer,
Clinton Staff sued in individual and/or official capacity, Donald
G. Uhler Superintendent, Lisa M. Barse, Senior Mailroom Clerk,
Upstate Staff sued in individual and/or official capacity, Paul
Chappius, Jr. Superintendent, J. Hughes Deputy Superintendent,
Pareso also known as: "Water Boy" Correction Officer, Elmira Staff
sued in individual and/or official capacity, Arnot Correction
Officer, Elmira Staff sued in individual and/or official capacity,
Flint Correction Officer, Elmira Staff sued in individual and/or
official capacity, Simpson Correction Officer, Elmira Staff sued
in individual and/or official capacity, Stewart Eckert
Superintendent; Wende Staff sued in individual and/or official
capacity, Kevin J. Brown Deputy Superintendent; Wende Staff sued
in individual and/or official capacity, B.J. Gabel
Deputy Superintendent; Wende Staff sued in individual and/or
official capacity, T. Franclemont Assistant Deputy Superintendent;
Wende Staff sued in individual and/or official capacity, Meyers
Correction Captain; Wende Staff sued in individual and/or official
capacity, Sowa Correction Lieutenant; Wende Staff sued in
individual and/or official capacity, Herzick
Correction Lieutenant; Wende Staff sued in individual and/or
official capacity, Labedz Correction Lieutenant; Wende Staff sued
in individual and/or official capacity, Wilkin Senior Offender
Rehabilitation Coordinator; Wende Staff sued in individual and/or
official capacity, Szableski Senior Offender Rehabilitation
Coordinator; Wende Staff sued in individual and/or official
capacity, B. Richardson Senior Offender Rehabilitation
Coordinator; Wende Staff sued in individual and/or official
capacity, Robert Correction Sergeant, Wende Staff sued in
individual and/or official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-
00892-TJM-DJS (N.D. N.Y., August 14, 2017).

Andrew Mark Cuomo is an American politician, author, and attorney
who has been the 56th Governor of New York since January 1, 2011.
[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NORDSTROM INC: Sells Fake "Vintage Rolex" Watches, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in Los Angeles, accuses Nordstrom and
Hautelook of selling fraudulent "vintage Rolex" watches.

The case is captioned, BRUNILDA STEPHENS, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. NORDSTROM, INC.;
HAUTELOOK, INC. Defendants. Case 2:17-cv-05872(C.D. Cal., August
8, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Brunilda Stephens and the Proposed Class:

     Roland C. Colton, Esq.
     COLTON LAW GROUP
     28202 Cabot Road, Third Floor
     Laguna Niguel, CA.  92677
     Telephone: (949) 365-5660
     Facsimile: (949) 365-5662
     Email: rcc7@msn.com

          - and -

     Alexander Escandari, Esq.
     L.A. TRIAL LAWYERS, INC.
     8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Fifth Floor
     Beverly Hills, CA. 90211
     Telephone: (310) 492-2000
     Facsimile: (310) 492-2001


NORTHLAND GROUP: Gutman Files Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group Inc.
The case is styled as Moshe Y. Gutman, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Northland
Group Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04799 (E.D. N.Y., August
16, 2017).

Northland Group provides accounts receivable management and
collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers, and
student loan lenders.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Faces "Geigoreva" Suit in E.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Optio Solutions LLC.
The case is styled as Lidia Geigoreva, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Optio Solutions LLC
doing business as: Qualia Collection Services d/b/a Qualia
Collection Services, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04821 (E.D. N.Y.,
August 16, 2017).

Optio Solutions, doing business as Qualia Collection Services
(QCS), operates a nationwide debt collection business. Defendant
sent a collection letter to the plaintiff that does not give a
clear indication of who the actual creditor is, says the
complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
   Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C.
   337 Avenue W, Suite 2f
   Brooklyn, NY 11223
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (347) 665-1545
   Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com


OWL INC: Perez, et al. Seek to Notify Potential Class Members
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOSE PEREZ, ALFREDO SANTOS, and DOUGLAS
RICHEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. OWL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-
01092-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order that notice of this case be issued to:

   "all individuals who were employed as drivers by Owl, Inc. who
   did not receive overtime pay despite working more than 40
   hours a week, including drivers Owl, Inc. labeled as "road
   supervisors," since June 15, 2014."

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to approve the proposed
Notice and Opt-in forms; order that notice be issued by regular
and electronic mail; set an opt-in deadline of 90 days after the
notices are issued; and allow for a reminder notice to be sent out
45 days into the opt-in period.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Vtzt97ev

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Weber, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  bweber@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Egan, Esq.
          Eric Lindstrom, Esq.
          EGAN, LEV, LINDSTROM & SIWICA, P.A.
          231 E. Colonial Drive
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (352) 672 6901
          E-mail: jegan@eganlev.com
                  elindstrom@eganlev.com


PETER THOMAS: Faces "Gonzales" Suit in Central District of Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peter Thomas Roth
Labs, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Gonzales and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Peter Thomas Roth Labs, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01393 (C.D. Cal., August 14, 2017).

Peter Thomas Roth Labs, LLC engages in the research and
development of skin care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Scott J Ferrell, Esq.
   Pacific Trial Attorneys APC
   4100 Newport Place Suite 800
   Newport Beach, CA 92660
   Tel: (949) 706-6464
   Fax: (949) 706-6469
   Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking & Health Class Cases Pending at July 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
on July 27, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that as of July 25,
2017, there were a number of smoking and health cases pending
against it, its subsidiaries or indemnitees, as follows:

   -- 68 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (34),
      Brazil (14), Canada (4), Chile (8), Costa Rica (2),
      Italy (2), the Philippines (1), Russia (1), Turkey (1) and
      Scotland (1), compared with 65 such cases on July 22, 2016,
      and 65 cases on July 29, 2015; and

   -- 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual
      plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11
      such cases on July 22, 2016 and 11 such cases on July 29,
      2015.

The cases in the Smoking and Health Litigation primarily allege
personal injury and are brought by individual plaintiffs or on
behalf of a class or purported class of individual plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties,
violations of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer
protection statutes.  Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms
of relief, including compensatory and other damages, and
injunctive and equitable relief.  Defenses raised in these cases
include licit activity, failure to state a claim, lack of defect,
lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, contributory
negligence, and statute of limitations.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: ADESF Class Suit in Brazil vs. Unit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed that a subsidiary still
defends itself against a class action filed in Brazil by consumer
organization The Smoker Health Defense Association, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 27, 2017, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

In the class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health Defense
Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central
Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July
25, 1995, the Company's subsidiary and another member of the
industry are defendants.  The plaintiff, a consumer organization,
is seeking damages for all addicted smokers and former smokers,
and injunctive relief.

In 2004, the trial court found defendants liable without hearing
evidence and awarded "moral damages" of BRL1,000 (approximately
US$318) per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the
rate of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling.  The court did
not award actual damages, which were to be assessed in the second
phase of the case.  The size of the class was not estimated.

Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which
annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial court
had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned
the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the claim.  In February
2015, the appellate court unanimously dismissed plaintiff's
appeal.

In September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of
Justice.

In February 2017, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
Justice denied plaintiff's appeal.

In March 2017, plaintiff filed an en banc appeal to the Supreme
Court of Justice.  In addition, the defendants previously filed a
constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis
that plaintiff did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.

Both appeals are still pending.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Public Prosecutor's Class Action vs. Unit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of the Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo regarding a
dismissed class action against a subsidiary of Philip Morris
International Inc. remains pending in the Superior Court of
Justice, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 27,
2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In the class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of Sao
Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., Civil
Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6, 2007, the
Company's subsidiary is a defendant.

The plaintiff, the Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is
seeking (i) damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former
smokers, and their relatives; (ii) damages on behalf of people
exposed to environmental tobacco smoke nationwide, and their
relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the health care costs
allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases
by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and the Federal
District.

In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court
limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only.

In December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a
decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case
involved issues similar to the ADESF case and should be
transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao Paulo where
the ADESF case is pending.  The court further stated that these
cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment.

In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh
Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases, finding that
they are based on different legal claims and are progressing at
different stages of proceedings.  This case was returned to the
Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and the Company's subsidiary
filed its closing arguments in December 2010.

In March 2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits.

In January 2014, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals rejected
plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the trial court decision.

In July 2014, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of Justice.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Letourneau" Class Action vs. Unit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Philip Morris International Inc. continues to
defend itself in a class action filed in Canada by Cecilia
Letourneau, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 27,
2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In the class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, the Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
(Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are
defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought
compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who
is deemed addicted to smoking.  The class was certified in 2005.

Trial began in March 2012 and concluded in December 2014.  The
trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015.  The trial court
found the Company's subsidiary and two other Canadian
manufacturers liable and awarded a total of CAD131 million
(approximately US$105 million) in punitive damages, allocating
CAD46 million (approximately US$37 million) to the Company's
subsidiary.

The trial court found that defendants violated the Civil Code of
Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the
Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of
the dangers of smoking.  The trial court also found that
defendants conspired to prevent consumers from learning the
dangers of smoking.

The trial court further held that these civil faults were a cause
of the class members' addiction.  The trial court rejected other
grounds of fault advanced by the class, holding that: (i) the
evidence was insufficient to show that defendants marketed to
youth, (ii) defendants' advertising did not convey false
information about the characteristics of cigarettes, and (iii)
defendants did not commit a fault by using the descriptors light
or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar delivery.  The trial court
estimated the size of the addiction class at 918,000 members but
declined to award compensatory damages to the addiction class
because the evidence did not establish the claims with sufficient
accuracy.

The trial court ordered defendants to pay the full punitive damage
award into a trust within 60 days and found that a claims process
to allocate the awarded damages to individual class members would
be too expensive and difficult to administer.  The trial court
ordered a briefing on the proposed process for the distribution of
sums remaining from the punitive damage award after payment of
attorneys' fees and legal costs.

In June 2015, the Company's subsidiary commenced the appellate
process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's
judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. The Company's
subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order
for payment into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal.

In July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and
overturned the trial court's ruling that the Company's subsidiary
make the payment into a trust within 60 days.

In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court of Appeal
seeking security in both the Letourneau case and the case
captioned Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves
Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and
JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada.

In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and
ordered the Company's subsidiary to furnish security totaling
CAD226 million (approximately US$180 million), in the form of cash
into a court trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive
quarterly installments of approximately CAD37.6 million
(approximately US$30 million) beginning in December 2015 through
March 2017.

The Court of Appeal heard oral arguments on the merits appeal in
November 2016.

The Company said, "Our subsidiary and PMI believe that the
findings of liability and damages were incorrect and should
ultimately be set aside on any one of many grounds, including the
following: (i) holding that defendants violated Quebec law by
failing to warn class members of the risks of smoking even after
the court found that class members knew, or should have known, of
the risks, (ii) finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused injury to each class
member in direct contravention of binding precedent, (iii)
creating a factual presumption, without any evidence from class
members or otherwise, that defendants' alleged misconduct caused
all smoking by all class members, (iv) holding that the addiction
class members' claims for punitive damages were not time-barred
even though the case was filed more than three years after a
prominent addiction warning appeared on all packages, and (v)
awarding punitive damages to punish defendants without proper
consideration as to whether punitive damages were necessary to
deter future misconduct."

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Conseil Quebecois Class Suit v Subsidiary Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
on July 27, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that its subsidiary
still defends itself against a class action related to a suit
captioned Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves
Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and
JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada.

In the class action pending in Canada, the Company's subsidiary
and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and
JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are defendants.  The plaintiffs, an anti-
smoking organization and an individual smoker, sought compensatory
and punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly
suffers from certain smoking-related diseases.  The class was
certified in 2005.

Trial began in March 2012 and concluded in December 2014.  The
trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015.  The trial court
found the Company's subsidiary and two other Canadian
manufacturers liable and found that the class members'
compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD15.5 billion,
including pre-judgment interest (approximately US$12.4 billion).

The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and
several liability basis, allocating 20% to the Company's
subsidiary (approximately CAD3.1 billion, including pre-judgment
interest (approximately US$2.5 billion)).  In addition, the trial
court awarded CAD90,000 (approximately US$71,900) in punitive
damages, allocating CAD30,000 (approximately US$24,000) to the
Company's subsidiary and found that defendants violated the Civil
Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms,
and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn
adequately of the dangers of smoking.

The trial court also found that defendants conspired to prevent
consumers from learning the dangers of smoking.  The trial court
further held that these civil faults were a cause of the class
members' diseases.  The trial court rejected other grounds of
fault advanced by the class, holding that: (i) the evidence was
insufficient to show that defendants marketed to youth, (ii)
defendants' advertising did not convey false information about the
characteristics of cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit
a fault by using the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with
a lower tar delivery.

The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957 members.
The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD1 billion
(approximately US$798 million) of the compensatory damage award
into a trust within 60 days, CAD200 million (approximately US$160
million) of which is the Company's subsidiary's portion and
ordered briefing on a proposed claims process for the distribution
of damages to individual class members and for payment of
attorneys' fees and legal costs.

In June 2015, the Company's subsidiary commenced the appellate
process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's
judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec.  The Company's
subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order
for payment into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal.

In July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and
overturned the trial court's ruling that the Company's subsidiary
make an initial payment within 60 days.

In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court of Appeal
seeking an order that defendants place irrevocable letters of
credit totaling CAD5 billion (approximately US$4.0 billion) into
trust, to secure the judgments in both the Letourneau and Blais
cases.

Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their motion for security against
JTI-MacDonald Corp. and proceeded only against the Company's
subsidiary and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.

In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and
ordered the Company's subsidiary to furnish security totaling
CAD226 million (approximately US$180 million) to cover both the
Letourneau and Blais cases.  Such security may take the form of
cash into a court trust or letters of credit, in six equal
consecutive quarterly installments of approximately CAD37.6
million (approximately US$30 million) beginning in December 2015
through March 2017.  The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco
Canada Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD758 million
(approximately US$605 million) in seven equal consecutive
quarterly installments of approximately CAD108 million
(approximately US$86 million) beginning in December 2015 through
June 2017.

In March 2017, the Company's subsidiary made its sixth and final
quarterly installment of security for approximately CAD37.6
million (approximately US$30 million) into a court trust.  This
payment is included in other assets on the condensed consolidated
balance sheets and in cash used in operating activities in the
condensed consolidated statements of cash flows.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a
final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's
judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal.  The Court
of Appeal heard oral arguments on the merits appeal in November
2016.

The Philip Morris stated, "The Company's subsidiary and PMI
believe that the findings of liability and damages were incorrect
and should ultimately be set aside on any one of many grounds,
including the following: (i) holding that defendants violated
Quebec law by failing to warn class members of the risks of
smoking even after the court found that class members knew, or
should have known, of the risks, (ii) finding that plaintiffs were
not required to prove that defendants' alleged misconduct caused
injury to each class member in direct contravention of binding
precedent, (iii) creating a factual presumption, without any
evidence from class members or otherwise, that defendants' alleged
misconduct caused all smoking by all class members, (iv) relying
on epidemiological evidence that did not meet recognized
scientific standards, and (v) awarding punitive damages to punish
defendants without proper consideration as to whether punitive
damages were necessary to deter future misconduct."

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Class Litigation in Canada Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
on July 27, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that it does not
anticipate activity in a "Kunta" class action filed in Winnipeg,
Canada, while the plaintiff's counsel pursues another class action
in Saskatchewan.

In the class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg,
Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her
own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease ("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild reversible
lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and
family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.

In September 2009, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that he
did not anticipate taking any action in this case while he pursues
the class action filed in Saskatchewan.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Still Pending in "Adams" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed on
July 27, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that preliminary
motions remain pending in the class action, Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Saskatchewan, Canada.

The class action was filed on July 10, 2009, and named the
Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants.  The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products.  She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have
smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered,
or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well
as restitution of profits.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Semple" Class Action in Canada Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed on
July 27, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that it anticipates
no activity in the "Semple" class action pending in Nova Scotia,
Canada, while plaintiff's counsel pursues another class action
filed in Saskatchewan.

In the class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court),
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the Company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants.  The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products
and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products.  He is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and
family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.

The Saskatchewan case, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, was
filed in July 10, 2009 and preliminary motions are still pending.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity in "Dorion" Class Action in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
on July 27, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that no activity is
anticipated in a "Dorion" class action pending in Alberta, Canada,
while plaintiff's counsel pursues another class action filed in
Saskatchewan.

In the class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta,
Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic
bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of
tobacco products.  She is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers,
their estates, dependents and family members, restitution of
profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs
allegedly caused by tobacco products.

As of July 27, 2017, the Company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint.

The Saskatchewan case, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, was
filed in July 10, 2009 and preliminary motions are still pending.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Still Faces McDermid Class Action Suit in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. continues to defend itself in the
class action, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.,
Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 27, 2017, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The class action was filed on June 25, 2010, and named the
Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products.  He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Bourassa Class Action Still Pending in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. still defends against the class
action, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.,
Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed on July 27, 2017, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

The class action was filed on June 25, 2010, and named the
Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007,
and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from
January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.

In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity in "Jacklin" Class Action in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed on July 27,
2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, disclosed that there has
been no activity in the class action styled Suzanne Jacklin v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior
Court of Justice.

The Company stated, "Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he
does not intend to take any action in this case in the near
future."

In the class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, filed June 20, 2012 the Company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products.  She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have
smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered,
or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as
restitution of profits.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products.  Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Merit, Parliament, Virginia S., L&M, Philip
Morris, Bond Street, Chesterfield, Lark, Muratti, Next, and Red &
White.  Philip Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987
and is based in New York, New York.


PREMIER NUTRITION: Sued by Gregorio for Misrepresenting Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH GREGORIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, Case No.
1:17-cv-05987-AT (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2017), alleges that the
Defendant markets certain products in a systematically misleading
manner, by misrepresenting that they have specific amounts of
protein that they do not in fact contain.

Premier Nutrition formulates, manufactures, advertises and sells
the popular "Premier Protein" branded ready-to-drink protein
product and protein bars throughout the United States, including
in New York.

Premier Nutrition Corporation is incorporated in the state of
Delaware, with a principal place of business located in
Emeryville, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
          1644 Bracken Rd.
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               - and -

          Anne Barker, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP PC
          306 Joy Street
          Fort Oglethorpe, GA 30742
          Telephone: (706) 858-0325
          E-mail: Abarker.consumerlawgroup@gmail.com


RAINBOW CHILD: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Ramnarine Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RENA ANNE RAMNARINE, Individually and on behalf of all similarly-
situated individuals v. RAINBOW CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.,
RAINBOW ACADEMY, INC., KIM T. MITCHELL, LLC and KIM TERESE
MITCHELL, Case No. 8:17-cv-02261-RWT (D. Md., August 9, 2017),
alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
by knowingly failing to pay the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated at one and one half times their regulate hourly rate for
each hour over 40 that they worked and failing to pay them
anything at all for some of the hours worked, including time spent
in employer-mandated meetings.

RCDC and RA are incorporated under the laws of Maryland and do
business primarily in Prince George's County, Maryland.  RCDC and
RA operate two and possibly three Preschools/Day Care Centers in
Prince George's County, Maryland.

KTM is a limited liability company licensed to do business in
Maryland and in fact does business in Prince George's County,
Maryland.  KTM owns the Preschool/Day Care facility located at
8921 Race Track Road, in Bowie, Maryland, the facility where the
Plaintiff worked at all times relevant to the Complaint.  Kim
Terese Mitchell is an Officer, Director, and owner of RCDC, RA and
KTM.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Omar Vincent Melehy, Esq.
          MELEHY & ASSOCIATES LLC
          8403 Colesville Road, Suite 610
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-6364
          Facsimile: (301) 587-6308
          E-mail: ovmelehy@melehylaw.com


RBC TRANSPORT: "Reynoso" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CARMEN REYNOSO, the Plaintiff, v. RBC
TRANSPORT DYNAMICS, a division of ROLLER BEARING COMPANY OF
AMERICA, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 8:16-cv-01037-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on September 28, 2017, for class certification.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WtMt0iZr

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Cantore, Esq.
          Joshua F. Young, Esq.
          Pamela Chandran, Esq.
          GILBERT & SACKMAN
          A LAW CORPORATION
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (323) 938 3000
          Facsimile: (323) 937 9139
          E-mail: rac@gslaw.org
                  jyoung@gslaw.org
                  pchandran@gslaw.org


RCH LAWN: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Calimano Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. RCH Lawn Maintenance LLC, and Seth Horowytz,
Case No. 1:17-cv-23012-JEM (S.D. Fla., August 8, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a lawn and garden services company
in Dade County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


REAL TIME: Faces "Eason" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Time
Resolutions, Inc.  The case is styled as Shannon A. Eason,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-04801 (E.D. N.Y., August 16, 2017).

Defendant Real Time Resolutions, Inc. is a Texas corporation
licensed to do business in Ohio. Real Time is engaged in the
business of collecting debts, including delinquent and defaulted
mortgage loans on behalf of mortgage loan investors.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


RETRIEVAl-MASTERS CREDITORS: Faces "Heerbrandt" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retrieval-Masters
Creditors Bureau, Inc.  The case is styled as Sarah Heerbrandt,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. doing
business as: American Medical Collection Agency, Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-04810 (E.D. N.Y., August 16, 2017).

Retrieval Masters is a consumer recovery agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


RIVER OAKS EMERGENCY: Langlinais Wants to Recoup Unpaid Wages, OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANI LANGLINAIS and WARREN HARRISON, JR. on Behalf of
Themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. RIVER OAKS EMERGENCY
CENTER LLC, KATY EMERGENCY CENTER LLC, and HORTENCIA LUNA-
GONZALES, Case No. 4:17-cv-02438 (S.D. Tex., August 8, 2017),
seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

River Oaks Emergency Center LLC is a limited liability company
headquartered in Houston, Texas.  Katy Emergency Center LLC is a
limited liability company headquartered in Katy, Texas.  Dr.
Hortencia Luna-Gonzales is the Medical Director and Chief
Executive Officer of both River Oaks Emergency and Katy Emergency.

River Oaks Emergency and Katy Emergency are freestanding 24-hour
emergency rooms in Houston and Katy.  The Facilities are not
hospitals or residential care facilities.  The Facilities are
equipped to handle injuries or life-threatening emergencies that a
standard emergency room can treat.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francisco J. Caycedo, Esq.
          MINCES PLLC
          4545 Bissonnet, Suite 286
          Bellaire, TX 77401
          Telephone: (346) 701-8563
          Facsimile: (713) 583-9795
          E-mail: frank.caycedo@mincespllc.com


ROCKET FUEL: Faces "Scarantino" Suit Over Acquisition by Sizmek
---------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ROCKET FUEL INC., RANDY WOOTTON, MONTE
ZWEBEN, RICHARD FRANKEL, SUSAN L. BOSTROM, RONALD E. F. CODD,
WILLIAM ERICSON, CLARK KOKICH, JOHN LEWIS, SIZMEK INC., FUEL
ACQUISITION CO., and VECTOR CAPITAL, Case No. 3:17-cv-04489-WHO
(N.D. Cal., August 7, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Rocket Fuel will be acquired by affiliates of
Vector Capital.

On July 17, 2017, Rocket Fuel's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Sizmek
Inc. ("Parent") and Fuel Acquisition Co. ("Merger Sub," and
together with Parent and Vector Capital, the "Buyers").  Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Rocket Fuel
will receive $2.60 in cash for each share of Rocket Fuel common
stock.

Rocket Fuel is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Redwood City, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  Rocket Fuel
is a predictive marketing software company that uses artificial
intelligence to empower agencies and marketers to anticipate
people's need for products and services.

Parent is a party to the Merger Agreement.  Defendant Merger Sub
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Parent and a party to the
Merger Agreement.  Vector Capital is an affiliate of Parent and
Merger Sub.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.com


ROOMSTOGO.COM: "Wetterer" Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Thomas Wetterer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ROOMSTOGO.COM, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 8:17-cv-01900 (M.D. Fla., August 10, 2017), seeks an
injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited telephone
calling activities to consumers.  The suit further seeks statutory
damages of $500.00 per violation, together with court costs,
reasonable attorneys' fees and treble damages under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is a large furniture store chain operating over 220
locations across Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and
Puerto Rico. It utilizes an automated telephone dialing system to
promote its products. On information and belief, Defendant
obtained the telephone numbers (i.e., leads) by purchasing
marketing lists containing consumers' telephone numbers. Defendant
made more than one unauthorized call to Plaintiff's residential
line for the purpose of marketing furniture deals to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has been a member of the National Do-Not-Call Registry,
since March 7, 2009. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
     DIEPPA MARTINEZ, PLLC
     14 Northeast First Ave., Suite 1001
     Miami, FL 33132
     Tel: (305) 901-2209
     Fax: (786) 870-4030

            - and -

     W. Craft HughesTexas Bar No. 24046123
     Jarrett L. Ellzey
     HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
     2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
     Galleria Tower I
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: (713) 554-2377
     Fax: (888) 995-3335
     Email: craft@hughesellzey.com
            jarrett@hughesellzey.com


S.C. JOHNSON: Carroll et al. Sue over Sunscreen Lotion Label
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class in Chicago claims in
a federal lawsuit that S.C. Johnson's "babyganics" mineral-based
sunscreen lotion and spray does not have the advertised Sun
Protection Factor rating of 50+, as testing revealed an SPF rating
of 30 or lower.

The case is captioned, LAURA CARROLL, KATHERINE EXO, ARMAND RYDEN,
and KATHARINE SHAFFER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. S. C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. and
VMG PARTNERS, LLC, Defendants. Case: 1:17-cv-05828 (N.D. Ill.,
August 10, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

     Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
     Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
     70 W. Madison St., Suite 1400
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 984-0000
     Fax: (312) 214-3110
     Email: tbell@whafh.com
     Email: malmstrom@whafh.com

          - and -

     Janine Lee Pollack, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 545-4600
     Fax: (212) 686-0114
     Email: pollack@whafh.com

          - and -

     Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
     Joseph Osefchen, Esq.
     Shane Prince, Esq.
     DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, PC
     Five Greentree Centre
     525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
     Marlton, NJ 08053
     Tel: (856) 797-9951
     Fax: (856) 797-9978
     Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com


SANDEN CORP: Faces Tiffin Motor Suit Over Antitrust Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFIN MOTOR HOMES, INC. and SLTNTRST LLC Trustee for FLEETWOOD
LIQUIDATING TRUST v. SANDEN CORP., SANDEN AUTOMOTIVE CLIMATE
SYSTEMS CORP., SANDEN AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS CORP., SANDEN
INTERNATIONAL (U.S.A.), INC., CALSONIC KANSEI CORP.,
CALSONICKANSEI NORTH AMERICA, INC., MAHLE BEHR GMBH & CO. KG,
MAHLE BEHR USA INC., SHOWA DENKO K.K., SHOWA ALUMINUM CORPORATION
OF AMERICA, PANASONIC CORP., and PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH
AMERICA, Case No. 2:17-cv-12540-BAF-SDD (E.D. Mich., August 7,
2017), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a proposed class
of direct purchasers of Air Conditioning Systems against
Defendants for damages under the antitrust laws of the United
States.

The Defendants are manufacturers of automotive air conditioning
systems, including compressors, for installation in motor vehicles
manufactured or sold in the United States.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants conspired to rig bids, and to fix, maintain,
and/or stabilize the prices of ACSs sold in the United States from
at least as early as January 1, 2001, through the present.

Sanden Corp. is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of
business in Tokyo, Japan.  Sanden International (U.S.A.), Inc. is
a corporation with its principal place of business in Wylie,
Texas.  Sanden International is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Sanden of America, Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Sanden Corp.  Sanden Automotive Climate Systems Corp. and Sanden
Automotive Components Corp. are Japanese corporations with their
principal places of business located in Tokyo.

Calsonic Kansei Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business in Saitama, Japan.  CalsonicKansei
North America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Shelbyville, Tennessee.  CalsonicKansei is a
subsidiary of and wholly owned and controlled by its parent,
Calsonic Kansei Corporation.

MAHLE Behr GmbH & Co. KG is a German corporation with its
principal place of business in Stuttgart, Germany.  MAHLE Behr
acquired Behr GmbH & Co. KG's Air Condition Systems business on or
about 2010, and upon information and belief, MAHLE Behr assumed
Behr GmbH & Co. KG's liabilities.  MAHLE Behr USA Inc. is a
Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Troy,
Michigan.  MAHLE Behr is a subsidiary of and wholly owned and
controlled by its parent corporation, MAHLE Behr.

Showa Denko K.K. is a Japanese company with its principal place of
business in Tokyo, Japan.  Showa Aluminum Corporation of America
is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in
Mount Sterling, Ohio.  Showa Aluminum is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Showa Denko K.K.

Panasonic Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal
place of business in Osaka, Japan. Panasonic Corporation of North
America is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Newark, New Jersey.  Panasonic Corporation of North
America is a subsidiary of and wholly-owned and controlled by its
parent company, Panasonic Corporation.[BN]

Plaintiff Tiffin Motor Homes, Inc., is represented by:

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Darryl Bressack, Esq.
          Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
          FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
          38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500
          E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
                  dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com
                  nfink@finkandassociateslaw.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: espector@srkattorneys.com
                  bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
                  jjagher@srkattorneys.com
                  jspector@srkattorneys.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4510
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  wlondon@fklmlaw.com
                  mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  whoese@kohnswift.com
                  dabrahams@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Michael S. Smith, Esq.
          PRETI FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04101
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000
          E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
                  rweill@preti.com
                  msmith@preti.com

               - and -

          Brian Murray, Esq.
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com
                  bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com

Plaintiff SLTNTRST LLC, Trustee for Fleetwood Liquidating Trust,
is represented by:

          Melissa H. Maxman, Esq.
          COHEN & GRESSER LLP
          2001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 851-2070
          E-mail: mmaxman@cohengresser.com

               - and -

          Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 833-6575
          E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 W. Clair Avenue, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP
          500 West C Street, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegal.com


SAWA RESTAURANT: Faces "Vazquez" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sawa Restaurant
Corp. The case is styled as Alejandro Vazquez, Graciano Carrillo
and Leonidas Fernandez on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sawa Restaurant Corp. doing
business as: Miramar, Aldo Eskandar and Una Eskandar, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-06129 (S.D. N.Y., August 14, 2017).

Sawa Restaurant Corporation is a restaurant located in New York,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------
Lavarita D. Meriwether, individually, and in her representative
capacity on behalf of the Sears Holdings Savings Plan, the Sears
Holdings Puerto Rico Savings Plan, and all other similarly
situated Plan participants and beneficiaries, Plaintiff, v. Sears
Holdings Corporation, Edward S. Lampert, Sears Holdings
Corporation Administrative Committee, Michael O'Malley, Sears
Holdings Corporation Investment Committee, Carol Hines Wacaser,
and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05825 (N.D. Ill.,
August 10, 2017), seeks redress for all losses to the Savings
Plans resulting from the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties,
including losses to the Savings Plans resulting from imprudent
investment of the assets, restoration of all profits made through
the use of the Savings Plans' assets, actual damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, equitable restitution and other appropriate
equitable relief resulting from unjust enrichment and for
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Meriwether is a current Sears employee and a participant in the
Sears Holdings Savings Plan where Defendant is the named
fiduciary.

According to the complaint, Defendants permitted the Savings Plans
to continue to offer the Sears Stock Fund as an investment option
to Participants even after they knew that Sears Stock Fund was a
poorly performing investment option, that there was no adequate
process in place to monitor the continued prudence of including
the Sears Stock Fund in the Savings Plans' investment lineup, that
the fiduciaries were not properly investigating the prudence of
continuing to hold and invest the Savings Plans' assets in the
Sears Stock Fund, and despite that fact that Sears was dependent
on an unsustainable business model that was no longer sought by
the consumer and that Sears was unable to effectively compete with
its peers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 233 1550
      Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
             jzouras@stephanzouras.com

             - and -

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      T. David Copley, Esq.
      Erin M. Riley, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Phone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
             dcopley@kellerrohrback.com
             eriley@kellerrohrback.com

             - and -

      Tanya Korkhov, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1140 Avenue of the Americas, Ninth Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (646) 380-6690
      Fax: (646) 380-6692
      Email: tkorkhov@kellerrohrback.com

             - and -

      Gary A. Gotto, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK, PLC
      3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Tel: 602/248-0088
      Fax: 602/248-2822
      Email: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com


SECURITAS SECURITY: Faces "Mills" Suit in M. Dist. of Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Securitas Security
Services USA, Inc.  The case is styled as James Mills, on behalf
of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 8:17-cv-01919-EAK-TBM (M.D. Fla., August 14, 2017).

The Defendants operate a security company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, PA,Suite 400
   600 N Pine Island Rd
   Plantation, FL 33324
   Tel: (954) 318-0268
   Fax: (954) 333-3515
   Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com

      - and -

   C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, PA
   20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
   Orlando, FL 32801-4624
   Tel: (407) 420-1414
   Fax: (407) 245-3401
   Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

      - and -

   Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, Tampa P.A.
   7th Floor
   One Tampa City Center
   201 N Franklin Street
   Tampa, FL 33602-5157
   Tel: (813) 223-5505
   Fax: (813) 257-0572
   Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: "Shillito" Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Shillito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sequans Communications S.A.,
Georges Karam and Deborah Choate, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
04707 (E.D. N.Y., August 10, 2017), seeks to pursue remedies under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Sequans Communications SA is a fabless designer, developer and
supplier of 4G semiconductor solutions for wireless broadband
applications. The Company's solutions incorporate baseband
processor and radio frequency, or RF, transceiver integrated
circuits, along with its proprietary signal processing techniques,
algorithms and software stacks.

Sequans failed to disclose that the company was suffering a
revenue decrease due to exceptional product return from an early
2016 sales related to the old tablet business. On this news,
Sequans' share price fell $0.67, or 18.21%, to close at $3.01 on
August 1, 2017, damaging investors such as the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

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

             - and -

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


SERVE LINK: "McLain" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSEMARY A. MCLAIN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SERVE LINK HOME CARE, INC., Case No. 5:17-
cv-06092-RK (W.D. Mo., August 8, 2017), is brought as:

   (a) a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to
       recover unpaid overtime wages owed to the Plaintiff and
       all other similarly situated workers employed by the
       Defendant; and

   (b) a Rule 23 class action under Missouri state law, including
       the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

Serve Link Home Care, Inc., is a non-profit corporation organized
under the laws of the state of Missouri, with its principal place
of business located in Trenton, Missouri.  As a home health care
services company, the Defendant offers a wide array of direct
services, including home health, hospice, in-home care, and
lifeline.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com


SIX FLAGS: Illinois Appellate Court to Review Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filed on July 26, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that two
questions regarding the interpretation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act have been certified for consideration by
the Appellate Court.

On January 7, 2016, a potential class action complaint was filed
against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation in the Circuit Court
of Lake County, Illinois.  On April 22, 2016, Great America, LLC
was added as a defendant.

The complaint asserts that the Company violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act in connection with the admission
of season pass holders and members through the finger scan program
at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois, and seeks
statutory damages, attorneys' fees and an injunction.  The program
commenced at the park in the 2014 operating season.  The complaint
does not allege that any information was misused or disseminated.

On June 17, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
and allowed the case to proceed.

On January 6, 2017, the court denied the Company's motion to
certify questions for interlocutory appeal, but on April 7, 2017,
the court granted the Company's motion for reconsideration of the
motion for interlocutory appeal and certified two questions for
consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court of the Second
District.

On June 7, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court granted the
Company's motion to appeal.  Accordingly, two questions regarding
the interpretation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act have been certified for consideration by the Appellate Court.

The Company said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend
ourselves against this litigation.  Since this litigation is still
in an early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable and a
reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss in excess of the
immaterial amount that we have recorded for this litigation cannot
be made."

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation owns and operates regional
theme and water parks under the Six Flags brand name.  The
Company's parks offer various thrill rides, water attractions,
themed areas, concerts and shows, restaurants, game venues, and
retail outlets, as well as family-oriented entertainment.  It owns
and operates 18 parks, including 16 parks in the United States; 1
park in Mexico City, Mexico; and 1 park in Montreal, Canada.  The
Company was formerly known as Six Flags, Inc. and changed its name
to Six Flags Entertainment Corporation in April 2010.  Six Flags
Entertainment Corporation was founded in 1971 and is based in
Grand Prairie, Texas.


SLM PRIVATE: Navient Removes "McHarris" Class Suit to E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Navient Solutions, LLC, removed on August 7, 2017, the
lawsuit titled TAMEIKA L. MCHARRIS, an individual, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated v. SLM PRIVATE CREDIT STUDENT
LOAN TRUST 2006-C, WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA, AND NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 504965/2017, from the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of Kings, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-04617 to the proceeding.

On March 13, 2017, Tameika L. McHarris commenced the Action in the
State Court.  The Action involves a claim arising under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.[BN]

Defendant Navient Solutions, LLC, is represented by:

          Ashley B. Huddleston, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE P.C.
          1633 Broadway, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 407-7700
          Facsimile: (212) 407-7799
          E-mail: ahuddleston@vedderprice.com


SPEEDWAY OFFICE: Innovative Accounting Sues Over Fax Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
INNOVATIVE ACCOUNTING SOLUTIONS, INC., a Michigan Corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. SPEEDWAY OFFICE PRODUCTS, METRO RECORD
SERVICE, INC., and SECURITY X-RAY, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-12563-
LVP-SDD (E.D. Mich., August 8, 2017), accuses the Defendants of
sending advertisements by facsimile in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Speedway Office Supplies is a registered California fictitious
business with its principal place of business in Burbank,
California, and an alter ego of Security X-Ray, Inc. and Metro
Record Service, Inc.

Metro Record and Security X-Ray are California Corporations with
their principal places of business located in Burbank.  Security
X-Ray and Metro Record sell Speedway fasteners.  Metro Record also
provides x-ray film duplication and scanning services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  robert@classlawyers.com
                  tod@classlawyers.com
                  david@classlawyers.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
          MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
          2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 100
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 649-5667
          E-mail: markwasvary@hotmail.com


SPLASH INC: Faces "Muniz" Labor Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------
Jose Muniz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Splash, Inc., and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC671524 (Cal. Super., August 9,
2017), seeks restitution, equitable relief, interest, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs for violations and unfair
business practices stemming from Defendants' failure to provide
meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods,
failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to maintain accurate records of hours
worked, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees,
and failure to furnish accurate wage statements under California
Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Defendants own and/or operate Japanese restaurants within the
State of California under the name "Musha." Muniz worked at Musha
Restaurant in Torrance, California as a cook. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kane Moon, Esq.
      Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
      MOON & YANG, APC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 232-3128
      Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
      E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
              justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com


STAPLES INC: Faces "Huntley" Suit Over Sale to Sycamore Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HUNTLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. STAPLES INC., ROBERT E. SULENTIC, VIJAY VISHWANATH,
CURTIS F. FEENY, KUNAL S. KAMLANI, PAUL-HENRI FERRAND, JOHN F.
LUNDGREN, DEBORAH A. HENRETTA, SHIRA D. GOODMAN, PAUL F. WALSH,
DREW G. FAUST, Case No. 1:17-cv-11467 (D. Mass., August 8, 2017),
is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Staples, for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with the sale of the Company to entities beneficially owned by
funds managed by Sycamore Partners Management, L.P.

On June 28, 2017, the Company entered into an agreement and plan
of merger, by which Sycamore, through its wholly owned subsidiary
Arch Parent Inc., and Arch Parent's wholly owned subsidiary, Arch
Merger Sub Inc. will acquire all of the outstanding shares of
Staples in an all-cash transaction.  If consummated, Staples
stockholders will receive $10.25 in cash for each share of Staples
stock that they own.  The Proposed Transaction was valued at
approximately $7 billion at the time of the announcement.

Staples is a Delaware corporation that is publicly traded on the
NASDAQ and maintains its corporate headquarters in Framingham,
Massachusetts.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.  Staples, together with its subsidiaries,
operate office products superstores.  The Company offers a range
of office supplies, business technology products, facility and
breakroom supplies, computers and mobility products, among other
things.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
          MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          18 Grove Street, Suite 5
          Wellesley, MA 02482
          Telephone: (781) 453-0100
          E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com


STAPLES: Faces "Kersey" Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Staples. The case is
styled as George Kersey, individually and on behalf or all others,
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Staples, et al, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-11267-NMG (D. Mass., August 14, 2017).

Staples is engaged in the retailing industry.

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


STUCKY LAUER: Accused by "Maloy" Class Suit of Violating FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL MALOY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. STUCKY, LAUER & YOUNG, LLP, Case No. 1:17-cv-00336
(N.D. Ind., August 9, 2017), accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Stucky Lauer is an entity, who at all relevant times was engaged,
by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting
to collect a "debt" from the Plaintiff.  The Defendant regularly
collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts
owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Panvini, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388-8875
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com


SUPERVALU INC: In Settlement Talks over Coupon Conspiracy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on July 25, 2017,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period (16 weeks) ended June 17, 2017, that it is negotiating the
settlement of a class action complaint regarding alleged
conspiracy of restricting the markets for coupon processing
services.

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
Supervalu, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.;
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United
States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company
that allege on behalf of a purported class that Supervalu and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

All proceedings had been stayed in the case pending the result of
the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS.  The
final criminal trial concluded in December 2016.

The District Court has indicated that it will release the stay of
the civil case and issue a scheduling order.  At a mediation on
May 22, 2017, Supervalu reached a preliminary settlement for a
nominal amount, subject to certain non-monetary terms that
Supervalu is in the process of negotiating.

Supervalu Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
grocery wholesaler and retailer in the United States.  The Company
operates through two segments, Wholesale and Retail.  It was
founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.


SUPERVALU INC: Inks Settlement of 2003 C&S Transaction Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed on July 25, 2017,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period (16 weeks) ended June 17, 2017, that a final settlement
agreement has been executed, subject to preliminary and final
court approval, in a consolidated class action lawsuit related to
a 2003 transaction with C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against Supervalu alleging that a 2003 transaction between
Supervalu and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy
to restrain trade and allocate markets.  In the 2003 transaction,
Supervalu purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of Supervalu to C&S that were located in New
England.

Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other
jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding
in the United States District Court in Minnesota.  The complaints
allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the
use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing
down of the distribution facilities that Supervalu and C&S
purchased from each other.  Plaintiffs are seeking monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted Supervalu's Motion to
Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration
agreements and plaintiffs appealed.

On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification and on January 11, 2013, the District Court
granted Supervalu's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the
case regarding the non-arbitration plaintiffs.  On February 12,
2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision
requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and
remanded to the District Court.

On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court ordered
mandatory mediation, which was not successful in resolving the
matter.

On May 21, 2014, the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the District Court's
decision granting summary judgment in favor of Supervalu, and (2)
affirmed the District Court's decision denying class certification
of a class consisting of all retailers located in the States of
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin
that purchased wholesale grocery products from Supervalu between
December 31, 2004 and September 13, 2008, but remanded the case
for the District Court to consider whether to certify a narrower
class of purchasers supplied from Supervalu's Champaign, Illinois
distribution center and potentially other distribution centers.

On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an
order that decided a number of matters including granting
plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for certain
Midwest Distribution Centers and denying plaintiffs' request to
add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiffs'
request to seek class certification for a group of New England
retailers.

On August 20, 2015, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate
Judge's order.

In September 2015, the plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit the
denial of the request to add an additional New England plaintiff
and to seek class certification for a group of New England
retailers and the hearing before the 8th Circuit occurred on
May 17, 2016.

On March 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a class certification
motion seeking to certify five District Court classes of retailers
in the Midwest and Supervalu filed its response on May 6, 2016.

On September 7, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion to certify five Midwest distribution center classes, only
one of which is suing Supervalu (the non-arbitration Champaign
distribution center class).

On March 1, 2017, the 8th Circuit denied plaintiffs' appeals
seeking to join an additional New England plaintiff and the appeal
seeking the ability to move for class certification of a smaller
New England class.

At a mediation on May 25, 2017, Supervalu reached a settlement
with the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class,
which is the one Midwest class suing Supervalu.  Supervalu and the
plaintiffs have executed a final settlement agreement and the
settlement is subject to preliminary and final court approval.
The material terms of the settlement include: (1) denial of
wrongdoing and liability by Supervalu; (2) release of all claims
against Supervalu related to the allegations and transactions at
issue in the litigation that were raised or could have been raised
by the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class; and
(3) payment by Supervalu of US$9.  There is no contribution
between C&S and Supervalu, and C&S did not settle the claims
alleged against them.  The New England Village Markets plaintiff
is not a party to the settlement and is pursuing its individual
claims against Supervalu, which at this time are determined as
remote.

SuperValu Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
grocery wholesaler and retailer in the United States.  The Company
operates through two segments, Wholesale and Retail.  It was
founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.


THE MET LLC: "Walker" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Walker, on his own behalf and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. The Met, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company and Geoffrey Michel, Individually, Defendants,
Case No. 8:17-cv-01901 (M.D. Fla., August 10, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a day spa and fashion house in Sarasota,
Florida -- https://themetsarasota.com/ -- where Plaintiff worked
as a "Stylist Assistant." Walker worked for Defendants in excess
of forty hours within a work week without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christine R. Sensenig, Esq.
     HULTMAN SENSENIG + JOSHI PA
     2055 Wood Street, Suite 208
     Sarasota, FL 34237
     Telephone: (941) 953-2828
     Fax: (941) 953-3018
     E-mail: csensenig@hsjlawfirm.com


TRANSCEND LIVING: "Eure" Suit Seeks Expense Reimbursement
---------------------------------------------------------
Jazmyne Eure, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Transcend Living, Inc., a
California corporation, and Does 1 through 30, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC671805 (Cal. Super., August 9, 2017), seeks
redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, reimbursements for business-related expenses and
failure to maintain time-keeping records, injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, and reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law and
applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Transcend provides luxury sober living communities for individuals
with substance addiction and mental health issues. Transcend
operates numerous luxury sober living homes in California, New
York, and Texas. Plaintiff was employed by Transcend from October
1, 2016 to March 7, 2017 as a graveyard shift house watcher
assigned to Transcend's location at 911 Harvard Street, Santa
Monica, California 90403. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shadie L. Berenji, Esq.
      Oscar Bustos, Esq.
      Brittanee A. Marksbury, Esq.
      BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC
      8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 708
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Fax: (310) 855-3751
      Phone: (310) 835-3270
      Email: berenji@employeejustice.law
             bustos@employeejustice.law
             marksbury@employeeiustice.law


TRUGREEN INC: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Morris" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Morris, Shannon Boyd, Ryan Coleman, Angel Aponte, Barry
Damico, Scott Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Trugreen, Inc., f/k/a Scott's Lawnservice,
Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-01465-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla., August 8, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay lawn service
technician's overtime compensation and minimum wages.

Trugreen, Inc. provides lawn care, tree and shrub care, and other
services to residential and commercial customers in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
      Jason M. Melton, Esq.
      WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
      One Progress Plaza
      200 Central Avenue, #400
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      Telephone: (727) 822-1111
      Facsimile: (727) 898-2001
      E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
              lechenerj@theFLlawfirm.com
              kmoran@theFLlawfirm.com


U.S. STEEL: Still Defends Securities Suits in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation is facing class action lawsuits in
Pennsylvania for alleged violations of federal securities laws,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017.

In May of 2017, two class action lawsuits were filed in federal
court in the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging that U.S.
Steel, Mario Longhi and David Burritt violated federal securities
laws in making false statements and/or failing to disclose
material information regarding the financial condition of the
Company.  The suits claim that this conduct caused a prospective
class of plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period of
November 1, 2016 through April 25, 2017 as a result of the
prospective class purchasing the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices and/or suffering losses when the
price of the common stock dropped.  The Company is vigorously
defending the matters.

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: Flat-Rolled Products (Flat-
Rolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products (Tubular).
The Company was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


UBER TECH: $32 Million Deal in "McKnight" Case Has Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco preliminarily approved on August 8
a $32 million class-action settlement against Uber for charging
customers a "safe rides fee" for its "woefully inadequate"
background checks of drivers.

Plaintiffs and Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC
have reached agreement on the concurrently-filed Amended
Stipulation of Settlement.  If approved, the Amended Settlement
will resolve claims arising out of Defendants' alleged
representations and omissions regarding the safety of Uber, the
"Safe Rides Fee," and driver background checks.  Defendants would
establish a $32.5 million, non-reversionary Settlement Fund, and
would agree to refrain from using the term "Safe Rides Fee" and
certain other terms regarding safety and background checks in
their Commercial Advertising.

The parties previously reached a settlement on February 11, 2016.
The Court denied preliminary approval without prejudice,
identifying several issues that the Court found questionable.
After several months of additional, extensive, mediated
negotiations to address these issues -- which included three
separate mediation sessions and a settlement conference before the
Hon. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero -- the parties reached
the Amended Settlement.

The first issue the Court raised in its Denial Order was that the
original settlement covered riders who had not paid a Safe Rides
Fee.  The Amended Settlement encompasses a class consisting only
of riders who paid a Safe Rides Fee, which reduces the class size
by over 2 million members.

The second issue was that the settlement did not take into account
the number of rides per rider.  In the Amended Settlement, damages
are measured, in part, by the
number of Safe Rides Fee rides a rider took, with each rider
receiving approximately 25 cents for his or her first ride, and 5
cents for each ride thereafter.  This allocation method was vetted
with Chief Magistrate Judge Spero and reflects, among other
things: (i) an attempt to make recovery for each and every class
member feasible in light of administrative costs; and (ii) the
relative strength of claims based on the first ride versus claims
based on subsequent rides, after disclosure of the Safe Rides Fee.

The final issue the Court raised was that Plaintiffs had not shown
that the $28.5 million original settlement amount fell within the
range of possible approval.  In the Amended Settlement, the fund
has increased to $32.5 million, even though the class size has
decreased by almost 10%.  Futhermore, the parties have negotiated
to reduce the maximum cap on the costs of notice and
administration, from $800,000 to $487,000, increasing the funds
available for distribution to the Class.

The case is captioned, BYRON McKNIGHT, et al., Plaintiff, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants., Case 3:14-cv-05615-JST
(N.D. Cal., August 7, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

     Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
     Tina Wolfson, Esq.
     Theodore Maya, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     1016 Palm Avenue
     West Hollywood, CA 90069
     Tel: 310-474-9111
     Fax: 310-474-8585
     E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
             twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
             tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

          - and -

     Mike Arias, Esq.
     Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
     ARIAS, SANGUINETTI, STAHLE & TORRIJOS, LLP
     6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
     Los Angeles, CA 90045-7504
     Tel: 310-844-9696
     Fax: 310-861-0168
     E-mail: mike@asstlawyers.com
             alfredo@asstlawyers.com

          - and -

     Nicholas Coulson, Esq.
     LIDDLE & DUBIN, PC
     975 E. Jefferson Avenue
     Detroit, MI 48207
     Tel: 313-392-0015
     Fax: 313-392-0025


UBER TECH: Won't Secure Workers Comp, "McCartney" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class action in San Diego, accuses Uber of refusing to secure
workers' compensation coverage for its employees, in San Diego
Superior Court.

The case is captioned THOMAS McCARTNEY, on behalf of himself and
Other members of the General Public Similarly Situated Plaintiff,
vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., and DOES through 100, Defendants. CASE
NO. 37-2017-00028818-CU-NP-CTL (S.D. Cal.)

Attorney for Plaintiff, THOMAS McCARTNEY, an individual, and Other
Members of the General Public, Similarly Situated:

     Timothy J. Donahue, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY J. DONAHUE
     2374 South Glassell Street
     Orange, CA 928663
     Telephone: (714)289-2445
     Facsimile: (714)289-2450


UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Suit over Mental Health Coverage Goes to Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class of patients who were denied coverage for mental
health and substance abuse treatment may take their claims against
a benefits administrator to trial, a federal judge in San
Francisco ruled on August 14.

In a 32-page ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero denied
United Behavioral Health's motion for summary judgment against a
class of insurance customers, but he also ruled patients may not
recover profits the administrator allegedly gained by denying them
coverage.

Two groups of patients sued United Behavioral Health, which does
business as OptumHealth Behavioral Solutions, in separate class
actions filed in May and December 2014. The patients claim the
company developed coverage guidelines inconsistent with generally
accepted standards, which allowed it to wrongly deny coverage for
mental health and substance abuse treatment.

According to the plaintiffs, the guidelines required patients to
suffer an "acute crisis" in order to obtain coverage. The
guidelines also failed to consider patients' coexisting medical
conditions, required them to "continually progress toward
recovery," excluded coverage for services to prevent deterioration
or maintain a level of functioning, and failed to adopt criteria
"tailored to the unique needs of children and adolescents,"
according to the class.

In September 2016, Spero certified three classes that were denied
different types of coverage under the federal Employee Retirement
Income Security Act and state laws in Connecticut, Illinois, Rhode
Island and Texas during varying timeframes between May 2011 and
June 2017.

United Behavioral Health filed a motion for summary judgment in
May, arguing the plaintiffs lack standing because they suffered no
concrete injury as a result of the alleged wrongful conduct.

But Spero found prior case law has established that plaintiffs can
sue to secure their rights under ERISA, and they "need not
demonstrate an actual loss to have standing to seek injunctive
relief."

The judge cited the 2003 Ninth Circuit ruling, Shaver v. Operating
Engineers Local 428 Pension Trust Fund, which held plaintiffs
could sue trustees of a benefits plan for failing to keep adequate
records, even if they suffered no tangible harm.

Requiring that plaintiffs suffer a concrete injury in such
situations "would be to say that the fiduciaries are free to
ignore their duties so long as they do no tangible harm, and that
the beneficiaries are powerless to rein in the fiduciaries'
imprudent behavior until some actual damage has been done," the
Ninth Circuit panel wrote in Shaver.

"Under Shaver, plaintiffs may bring an action to enforce UBH's
fiduciary obligations without establishing that the alleged
violation has caused an actual loss, such as a denial of
benefits," Spero wrote.

The judge also denied the company's motion for summary judgment on
claims under Texas state law, finding the administrator failed to
conclusively prove that it applied a different set of guidelines
to those claims. Such a material dispute of fact must be resolved
at trial, he ruled.

However, Spero found the plaintiffs could not seek disgorgement
based on profits United Behavioral Health made in surcharges for
processing denied claims.

"Plaintiffs did not point to any evidence that would allow the
court to reasonably determine the amount of UBH's profits that is
attributable to the alleged wrongdoing, namely, applying flawed
guidelines to plaintiffs' claims," Spero wrote, dismissing the
request to recover surcharges with prejudice.

The judge left intact the plaintiffs' ability to seek an
injunction ordering United Behavioral Health to stop using the
disputed guidelines, develop new guidelines consistent with
generally accepted standards, and make the company reprocess all
claims for coverage that were denied, in whole or in part, based
on the challenged guidelines.

A bench trial in the case is scheduled to start on Oct. 16.

Class attorney Meiram Bendat and United Behavioral Health's
attorney Christopher Flynn did not immediately return phone calls
and emails seeking comment on August 15, afternoon.

Bendat is with Psych-Appeal Inc. in West Hollywood, California.
Flynn is with Crowell and Moring in Washington.

The case is captioned, DAVID WIT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant. GARY ALEXANDER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant. Case 3:14-cv-02346-JCS
(N.D. Cal., August 14, 2017).


VIACOM INC: Sued by Rushing for Exfiltrating Kids' Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA RUSHING, and her child, L.L., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. VIACOM INC.; VIACOM INTERNATIONAL
INC.; UPSIGHT, INC.; and UNITY TECHNOLOGIES SF, Case No. 3:17-cv-
04492 (N.D. Cal., August 7, 2017), is brought by and on behalf of
parents of children who, while playing online games via smart
phone apps, have had their personally identifying information
exfiltrated by Viacom  and its partners, for future commercial
exploitation, in direct violation of the federal Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs contend that they bring claims under state laws to
obtain an injunction to cease these practices, sequester illegally
obtained information and damages.

Viacom Inc. -- headquartered in New York City -- is an American
multinational media conglomerate.  Viacom Inc. (i) runs major
media networks, including numerous television channels; (ii)
produces, finances, and distributes motion pictures; and (iii)
licenses, develops, and publishes consumer products and
interactive media, including apps for children.  Viacom Inc.
developed and marketed the online gaming app used by the
Plaintiffs, Llama Spit Spit, and other online gaming apps used by
millions of people in the United States.

Viacom International Inc. is a subsidiary of Viacom Inc. and the
holding company for Viacom Inc.'s intellectual property.  Viacom
International is the listed seller of the child-focused gaming app
Llama Spit Spit and numerous other games for children on mobile
platforms.  These apps are often operated by Nickelodeon, a
business unit of Viacom Media Networks.  Viacom Media Networks, a
division of Viacom International Inc., provides entertainment
content and related branded products to consumers, including
children.

The SDK Defendants are entities, which provided their own
proprietary computer code to Viacom, known as software development
kits ("SDKs"), for installation and use in Viacom's gaming apps,
including Llama Spit Spit.

SDK Defendant Upsight, Inc., is an American technology company
headquartered in San Francisco, California.  SDK Defendant Unity
Technologies SF is an American technology headquartered in San
Francisco.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: msobol@lchb.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Diamand, Esq.
          Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq.
          Abbye R. Klamann, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: ndiamand@lchb.com
                  dcuthbertson@lchb.com
                  aklamann@lchb.com

               - and -

          Hank Bates, Esq.
          Allen Carney, Esq.
          David Slade, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 West 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
                  acarney@cbplaw.com
                  dslade@cbplaw.com


WEBMD HEALTH: Shareholders Sue over $2.8B Sale to KKR
-----------------------------------------------------
John Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
shareholders filed a federal class action in Manhattan challenging
WebMD's proposed $2.8 billion sale to Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.

Lead plaintiff Jeffrey Rubin claims the company's board and
executive failed to disclose conflicts of interest for WebMD
insiders and its financial adviser, J.P. Morgan Securities.

Only WebMD Health Corp. and its top executives and board are
defendants -- not J.P. Morgan or Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.

The complaint of securities violations claims WebMD insiders will
reap a substantial financial windfall as under the merger
agreement all unvested equity-based awards held by company
executives will be converted into the right to receive cash
payments.

Defendant WebMD CEO Steven Zatz, who recused himself from voting
on a recommendation letter to shareholders before the merger,
stands to garner more than $18 million from cashing out
outstanding company stock options, according to the 28-page
complaint filed August 9.

Other WebMD executives stand to a total of more than $30 million
through golden parachute payments, even if they are fired after
the acquisition, according to the complaint.

Kohlberg Kravis Roberts is to buy all outstanding common shares
for $66.50 apiece in cash.  WebMD and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
announced the merger in a joint statement on July 24, in which
they described the $66.50 per share tender offer as "a premium of
approximately 20 percent over WebMD's closing share price on July
21, 2017." They anticipate closing the deal in the fourth quarter
of 2017.

"Throughout this process, our Board has conducted diligent
analysis and thoughtful deliberations," CEO Zatz said in the
announcement. "WebMD and its financial advisers had a process that
involved outreach to more than 100 strategic and financial
parties, and we are confident that this transaction maximizes
value for our stockholders."

WebMD, which publishes health and medical information online,
reported revenue of $705 million in 2016. It did not respond to
requests for comment on August 10.

Rubin seeks class certification, an injunction against the merger,
and rescission and damages if it is completed. He is represented
by Richard Acocelli at WeissLaw in Manhattan.

The case is captioned, JEFFREY RUBIN, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. WEBMD HEALTH CORP.,
STEVEN L. ZATZ, MARTIN J. WYGOD, MARK J. ADLER, IAN G. BANWELL,
NEIL F. DIMICK, JAMES V. MANNING, WILLIAM J. MARINO, JOSEPH E.
SMITH, STANLEY S. TROTMAN, JR., and KRISTIINA VUORI, Defendants.
Case 1:17-cv-06019 (S.D.N.Y., August 9, 2017).


WELLS FARGO: Accused by "Ross" Suit of Placing Unneeded Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLANI ROSS and DEE LENZ, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., D/B/A WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES, NATIONAL GENERAL HOLDINGS
CORP., and NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:17-cv-
04498 (N.D. Cal., August 7, 2017), alleges that Wells Fargo
deceptively charged hundreds of thousands of automotive loan
customers for Collateral Protection Insurance ("CPI") they did not
need, exacting profits at borrowers' expense.

Wells Fargo & Company is a corporation and bank holding company
organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of
business in San Francisco, California.  Wells Fargo & Company is
one of the nation's largest corporations, providing a wide-range
of financial services to customers throughout the United States.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is a national association bank chartered
in South Dakota and headquartered in San Francisco.  Wells Fargo
Bank is Wells Fargo & Company's principal subsidiary, and Wells
Fargo & Company exercises control over Wells Fargo Bank's policies
and practices.  Through Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Wells Fargo
Bank originates and services loans to customers that are secured
by those customers' vehicles.

National General Holdings Corp. is a Delaware corporation and
insurance holding company headquartered in New York, New York.
National General Insurance Company is a Missouri corporation
headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and is a
subsidiary of National General Holdings Corp.  National General
Insurance Company provided insurance tracking services to Wells
Fargo and underwrote the CPI policies that Wells Fargo billed to
Plaintiffs and the Class members.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Benjamin D. Steinberg, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
                  klerner@robinskaplan.com
                  bsteinberg@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Susan S. Brown, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: (650) 784-4040
          Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
          E-mail: MRam@RobinsKaplan.com
                  SBrown@RobinsKaplan.com
                  ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com

               - and -

          Roman M. Silberfeld, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-0130
          Facsimile: (310) 229-5580
          E-mail: RSilberfeld@RobinsKaplan.com

               - and -

          Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          SSlaughter@RobinsKaplan.com

               - and -

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          Mark Eldridge, 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
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Unneeded Automobile Insurance Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Neal, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Wells Fargo, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Dealer
Services and National General Insurance Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00653-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., August 8, 2017), arises from the
Defendants' scheme to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from
unsuspecting automobile purchasers by foisting unwanted and
unneeded automobile insurance costs.

Headquartered in South Dakota, Wells Fargo, N.A. specializes in
home and auto loans for consumers.

National General Insurance Company is an insurance company
headquartered at 59 Maiden Lane, 38th Floor, New York, New York
10038. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Macy D. Hanson, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MACY D. HANSON, PLLC
      The Echelon Center
      102 First Choice Drive
      Madison, MI 39110
      Telephone: (601) 853-9521
      E-mail: macy@macyhanson.com


WEST MARINE: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Proposed Monomoy Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. West Marine, Inc., Barbara Rambo, Randy Repass, Matt
Hyde, Dennis Madsen, Robert Olsen, Jamie Nordstrom, Alice Richter,
Christiana Shi, Rising Tide Parent Inc., Rising Tide Merger Sub,
Inc., and Monomoy Capital Partners, Case No. 3:17-cv-04522-JD
(N.D. Cal., August 8, 2017), is brought on behalf of all public
stockholders of West Marine, Inc. to enjoin a proposed transaction
announced on June 29, 2017, pursuant to which West Marine will be
acquired by affiliates of private equity firm Monomoy Capital
Partners for $12.97 in cash for each share they own.

According to the complaint, West filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, which recommends that West stockholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction.  However, the Proxy omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) "Background of the Merger;" and (ii) "Interests of the
Company's Directors and Executive Officers in the Merger."

West Marine, Inc. is a leading omni-channel specialty retailer in
its industry, serving people who enjoy recreating on or around the
water. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 291-2420
      Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
      E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com

         - and -

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com


XBIOTECH INC: "Rezko" Securities Class Suit Removed to W.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned YOGINA REZKO, AARON LE, and ANDREW BANK,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
XBIOTECH INC., JOHN SIMARD, QUEENA HAN, FABRIZIO BONANNI, W.
THORPE MCKENZIE, DANIEL VASELLA, and WR HAMBRECHT + CO., LLC, Case
No. D-1-GN-17-003063, was removed on August 7, 2017, from the
200th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00734 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit as a purported class action on
July 6, 2017, in State Court.  The case involves federal
securities claims over the same initial public offering prospectus
disclosures at issue in another putative class action entitled
Tran v. XBiotech Inc., No. 1:15-CV-1083-SS (W.D. Tex.), which
Judge Sam Sparks dismissed with prejudice on the parties'
stipulation on October 7, 2016, after initially granting
XBiotech's motion to dismiss without prejudice.

With the consent of all Defendants, XBiotech asks that the Rezko
Action be assigned to Judge Sparks as a related case to the Tran
Action, as both cases involve substantially the same issues of
fact and overlapping class definitions.  Both suits assert federal
securities law claims against XBiotech, John Simard, and Queena
Han based on the same alleged misstatements in XBiotech's initial
public offering disclosures.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yusuf A. Bajwa, Esq.
          Erin Hudson, Esq.
          SANDERS BAJWA LLP
          919 Congress Ave., Suite 750
          Austin, TX 78701-2160
          Telephone: (512) 535-5220
          Facsimile: (512) 270-5111
          E-mail: ybajwa@sandersbajwa.com
                  ehudson@sandersbajwa.com

               - and -

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Keith Lorenze, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (866) 767-3653
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  klorenze@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          4101 Wiseman Blvd.
          San Antonio, TX 78251
          Telephone: (210) 624-6221

Defendants XBiotech Inc., John Simard, Queena Han, Fabrizio
Bonanni, W. Thorpe McKenzie, and Daniel Vasella are represented
by:

          Peter A. Stokes, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Austin, TX 78701-4255
          Telephone: (512) 474-5201
          Facsimile: (512) 536-4598
          E-mail: peter.stokes@nortonrosefulbright.com

Defendant WR Hambrecht + Co., LLC is represented by:

          Michael J. Biles, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          401 Congress Ave., Suite 3200
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 457-2014
          Facsimile: (512) 457-2100
          E-mail: mbiles@kslaw.com


                             *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *