---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, August 17, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 164




                            Headlines


411 REST: Faces "Beda" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over FCRA Violation
ABM PARKING: "Guzman" Suit Alleges Violations of Labor Laws
ADVANCED ROOFING: Sued by Pentiuk for Sending Unsolicited Faxes
ADVENTIST MIDWEST: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALLIED NEVADA: Court Dismisses Securities Suit

AMERICAN NATIONAL: Assessor Trainee Loses FLSA Class Action
ARTERIORS TOO: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Blair" Suit Alleges
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Allen" Suit Over Pradaxa (R)
CAPGEMINI NORTH: Violates ERISA, "Bhattacharya" Class Suit Claims
COLUMBIA COUNTY, AR: Rasberry Seeks Wages Under FLSA and AMWA

CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Heller" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
EMBRAER SA: Faces "Kukkadapu" Suit for Violating Securities Laws
ERIE INSURANCE: Faces "Carlucci" Lawsuit Over Motorist Claims
EVERALBUM INC: Faces Lawsuit in N.J. Alleging TCPA Violation
FCA US: Faces "Brooks" Class Suit Over Defective E-shift System

FIAT CHRYSLER: Sept. 27 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
FLETCHER'S TIRE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Gebhart" Suit Says
FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Faces ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
GATE GOURMET: Faces "Gates" Suit Alleging Violations of Wage Laws
GLASSDOOR: Faces Class Action Over Terms of Service Email Update

GLENDA'S INC: Holden Wants to Recoup Unpaid Back Wages Under FLSA
GOING GREEN: Ramos Wants to Get Damages for Retaliatory Discharge
HEARTWARE INT'L: Huttemann Challenges Proposed Sale to Medtronic
HONEST CO: "Glover" Class Suit Consolidated in SLS Marketing MDL
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Dating Website Allegedly Uses False Advertising

IT'S JUST LUNCH: Dating Service Fails to Deliver Promises
JACARANDA CLUB: Faces "Bruton" Suit Over Labor Law Violations
JAMES HARDIE: Claimants Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
JEFFREY KATZENBERG: Teamsters Local Sues Over Comcast Merger Plan
LUDI BRUCA: Violates FLSA and NYLL, "Librado" Class Suit Alleges

MAC COSMETICS: Donohue Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Nov. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
METHODIST HEALTH: Nurse Files FLSA Class Action in Texas
MIKA SUSHI: Faces "Melendrez" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
MINNESOTA: Human Services Dept. Faces "Gordon" ADA Violation Suit

MINES MANAGEMENT: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
MODESTO, CA: Employee Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
NIANTIC INC: New Jersey Resident Files Pokemon Go Class Action
NUTERRA MANAGEMENT: Faces "Rafael" Lawsuit Over FLSA "Violation"
PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Indonesian Seaweed Farmers to File Class Suit

QES WIRELINE: Faces Suit in Tex. Alleging Violations of FLSA
QUAKER OATS: "Gates" Consumer Suit Transferred to Cal. Court
QUANTUM TRANSPORTATION: Sued for Violations Wage and Hour Laws
RADIANCY INC: "Cantley" Suit Moved From E.D. California to D.D.C.
RAMIREZ & SON: Accused by Solorzano of Not Paying Overtime Wages

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: DA Recommends New Bailout System Approach
SCALE CONSTRUCTION: Mendez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SKULLCANDY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
STATE STREET: ATRS to Receive Percentage of $300MM Settlement
SUFFOLK BANCORP: "Parshall" Sues Over Sale to People's United

TALEN ENERGY: Faces ABT Suit Over Proposed Sale to Riverstone
TALEN ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Suit in Del. Over Riverstone Deal
TESLA MOTORS: Robbins Arroyo Investigates SolarCity Acquisition
TITAN DIRECTIONAL: Brown Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 30 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set

TIVO INC: Faces "Graham" Shareholder Suit Over Merger with Rovi
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
WALTCO METAL: Faces "Siddique" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
WHITEWAVE FOODS: Malkoff Challenges Proposed $10BB Sale to Danone
WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces "Berge" Suit Over Acquisition by Danone

WISCONSIN: Conservative Group Files Class Action v. Investigators
WORTHINGTON PJ: O'Connor Files Suit on Behalf of Delivery Drivers
YAZOO COUNTY, MS: Faces "Ceasar" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
ZISHAN INC: Faces "Castillo" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA

* Increase in M&A Class Actions May Raise D&O Rates, Expert Says
* Prof. Morabito Report Reveals Spike in Australian Class Actions





                            *********

411 REST: Faces "Beda" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over FCRA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD BEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 411 REST. CORP., JOSHUA TREE, MERCURY BAR and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Case No. 1:16-cv-06275 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2016),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transaction Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which
prohibits any person, who accepts credit cards or debit cards,
from printing more than the last five digits of the card number at
the point of the sale or transaction.

The Defendants are New York corporations whose principal offices
are located in New York City.  Mercury Bar and Joshua Tree are
both owned by the 411 Rest Corp.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABM PARKING: "Guzman" Suit Alleges Violations of Labor Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO BALDIVIEZO GUZMAN, an individual, DAVID CHRISTOPHER POZ,
an individual, v. ABM PARKING SERVICES, INC., a California
Corporation, ABM ONSITE SERVICES-WEST, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No: BC 629788
(Cal. Super. Ct., August 8, 2016), alleges violation of the Labor
Code, the Business and Profession Code, and the California Labor
Code.

ABM Parking Services, Inc. provides parking management and
building maintenance services for airports, colleges and
universities, commercial office buildings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jack D. Josephson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON, APC
     3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (213) 738-5225


ADVANCED ROOFING: Sued by Pentiuk for Sending Unsolicited Faxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
PENTIUK, COUVREUR & KOBILJAK, P.C., a Professional Corporation,
and all others similarly situated v. ADVANCED ROOFING, INC., a
Michigan Domestic Profit Corporation and d/b/a ADVANCED ROOFING -
MIDWEST, a Michigan corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-12863-DPH-EAS
(E.D. Mich., August 4, 2016), challenges the Defendant's alleged
practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles, in violation of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Pentiuk is a law firm based in Michigan.

Advanced Roofing, Inc., is a Michigan Domestic Profit Company with
its principal place of business located in Sterling Heights,
Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kerry L. Morgan, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          Attorneys for Plaintiff
          2915 Biddle Avenue, Suite 200
          Wyandotte, MI 48192
          Telephone: (734) 281-7100
          E-mail: Kmorganesq@aol.com


ADVENTIST MIDWEST: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
home health care worker has brought a potential class action
lawsuit against Adventist Midwest Health, saying the health care
system has underpaid him and other home health nurses, therapists
and others by paying them per visit, without overtime and other
compensation he claims they should have been required to pay under
federal and state wage laws.

On July 27, Ryan Smith, identified only as an Illinois resident
who worked as a clinician for Hinsdale-based Adventist Midwest
Health, filed a complaint in Chicago federal court against the
health system.

According to the complaint, Mr. Smith and others -- including
nurses, physical therapists, occupational therapists and speech
pathologists, among others -- have been required by Adventist
Midwest for years to provide their services to Adventist Midwest
patients in their homes.

In addition to the time actually spent with patients, Mr. Smith's
complaint said those visits would often include a number of other
tasks, associated with the job, which would be performed before or
after the visit with the patient, including patient "charting,"
preparation for the visits, "communications with patients,
physicians and other medical care providers," travel to the
patients' homes, and time spent "dropping off lab specimens and
following up on lab work," as well as "coordinating with other
disciplines" and "ordering medical equipment and supplies," among
others.

He alleged that the additional work often caused him and other
home health care workers to put in more than 40 hours a week.

However, despite the additional work, Mr. Smith said that
Adventist Midwest paid the clinicians only "an hourly base rate
multiplied by pre-defined visit multipliers as a proxy for hourly
compensation," and no overtime, which he said fell short under the
requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

He alleged that Adventist Midwest had classified its home health
care workers as "exempt" under the overtime requirements of those
laws, allowing them to pay the workers less.

Mr. Smith's complaint did not precisely indicate how many other
Adventist Midwest Health home health workers might be covered by
the class action, but the lawsuit said the number would be more
than 100, potentially including all home health care workers
employed by Adventist Midwest in the past three years.

Adventist Midwest operates Adventist Hinsdale Hospital, LaGrange
Memorial Hospital, Bolingbrook Hospital and GlenOaks Hospital, as
well as Adventist Health Care At Home, which is based in LaGrange,
among other health care facilities in Chicago's suburbs.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Smith has asked the court to certify a class
of additional plaintiffs, and to award compensatory damages for
the overtime hours Smith has alleged he and others were not paid,
plus 2 percent interest on those overtime wages, as called for
under the Illinois wage law.

He also requested attorney fees and a jury trial.

Mr. Smith and the potential plaintiffs class are represented in
the action by attorney James B. Zouras --
jzouras@stephanzouras.com -- and others with the firm of Stephan
Zouras LLP of Chicago.


ALLIED NEVADA: Court Dismisses Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE ALLIED NEVADA GOLD CORP., SECURITIES
LITIGATION, No. 3:14-CV-00175-LRH-WGC (D. Nev.), Judge Larry R.
Hicks of the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the
plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Hicks's August 8, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/qcrUTE from Leagle.com.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of
investors who purchased stock in Allied Nevada Gold Corporation
between January 18, 2013, and August 5, 2013.

Movses Marjanian, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Alba, Jr. --
malba@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Martin A. Muckleroy, Muckleroy Lunt, Samuel H. Rudman --
srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice & David C. OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C.

Jose Parraga, Jeanette Parraga, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew
L. Sharp, Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd.

Janet Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Muehlbauer,
Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd., pro hac vice, Griffith H. Hayes --
ghayes@cookseylaw.com -- Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog &
Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice.

Jeff Croucier, Movant, represented by Erik D. Buzzard --
ebuzzard@palumbolawyers.com -- Palumbo Bergstrom LLP & Sean P.
Connell -- sconnell@palumbolawyers.com -- Palumbo Bergstrom LLP.

LBP Holdings Ltd., Movant, represented by Griffith H. Hayes,
Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog, Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross
LLP & Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd., pro hac
vice.

Richard Heil, Movant, represented by Naumon A. Amjed --
namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Ryan Thomas
Degnan -- rdegnan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP &
Kirk B. Lenhard -- klenhard@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck, LLP.

State-Boston Retirement System, Movant, represented by Christopher
Joseph Keller, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Michael W. stocker, Labaton
Sucharow LLP & Kirk B. Lenhard, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,
LLP.

United Teamster Pension Fund-A, Sherman Olson, Susan Olson,
Movants, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

Thomas Frost, Movant, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC, pro
hac vice & Patrick R. Leverty, Leverty & Associates Chtd.

Beth Frost, Beth Thomas, Movants, represented by Patrick R.
Leverty, Leverty & Associates Chtd.

Allied Nevada Gold Corp., Defendant, represented by Brendan Peter
Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Laura K. Oswell,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Lyon Green,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice & Robert A. Sacks, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP., pro hac vice.

Scott A Caldwell, Robert M Buchan, Randy E Buffington, Stephen M
Jones, Defendants, represented by Anjali D. Webster, Gordon
Silver, Brendan Peter Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac
vice, Brian R. Irvine, Dickinson Wright, Laura K. Oswell, Sullivan
& Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Lyon Green, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Sacks, Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP., pro hac vice & John Desmond, Dickinson Wright.

Jeff Croucier, Defendant, represented by Erik D. Buzzard, Palumbo
Bergstrom LLP & Sean P. Connell, Palumbo Bergstrom LLP.

Andrey Slomnitsky, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Brian E. Lunt,
Aaron & Paternoster, Ltd., Charles J. Piven, Brower Piven, pro hac
vice, David A.P. Brower, Brower Piven & Martin A. Muckleroy,
Muckleroy Lunt.

                   About Allied Nevada

Allied Nevada Gold Corp. ("ANV"), a Delaware corporation, is a
publicly traded U.S.-based gold and silver producer engaged in
mining, developing and exploring properties in the State of
Nevada.

ANV was spun off from Vista Gold Corp. in 2006 and began
Operations in May 2007. Nevada-based mining properties acquired
from Vista include the Hycroft Mine, an open-pit heap leach
operation located 54 miles west of Winnemucca, Nevada. ANV
controls 75 exploration properties throughout Nevada as of Dec.
31, 2014.

On March 10, 2015, ANV and 13 affiliated debtors each filed a
voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware. The cases are jointly administered under
Lead Case No. 15-10503. The cases are assigned to Judge Mary F.
Walrath.

The Debtors have tapped Blank Rome LLP and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld LLP as attorneys; FTI Consulting Inc. as financial advisor;
Moelis & Company as financial advisor; and Prime Clerk LLC as
claims and noticing agent.

ANV disclosed $941 million in total assets and $664 million in
total debt as of Dec. 31, 2014.

BankruptcyData reported that Allied Nevada Gold's Amended Joint
Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization became effective and the Company
emerged from Chapter 11 protection.

The Court confirmed the Plan on Oct. 8, 2015. Highlights of the
Plan include the following: As a result of the financial
restructuring, the Company eliminated approximately $447.7 million
of debt and related interest payments from its balance sheet. The
Company closed two financings: a $126.7 million first lien term
loan credit agreement and $95 million of second lien convertible
notes. The credit agreement proceeds were used to repay the
Company's outstanding loan obligations related to its revolving
credit agreement and the amounts owed under the Company's diesel
and cross-currency swap arrangements.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Assessor Trainee Loses FLSA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keith M. Hill, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that American
National Standards Institute obtained a favorable ruling in a
class action.

The New York nonprofit accreditation company hired a Canadian
citizen as an assessor trainee.  The worker signed an employment
agreement with the company that was governed by New York state
labor laws.

As part of his job, the worker was required to travel and attend
mandatory, multiday training sessions in Maryland, New Jersey and
Washington, D.C. However, the worker did not travel to New York or
work in the city, where the company had its headquarters.

The trainee filed a class action lawsuit under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York labor laws over the nonprofit's failure
to pay him for the time spent at training sessions, along with
preparation time and for time spent traveling to the mandatory
trainings.  The nonprofit sought to dismiss the trainee's state
law claims.

The trainee was not entitled to bring the state law claim against
the nonprofit, a federal district court ruled.

The trainee raised three claims in opposition to the nonprofit's
motion to dismiss his state law claim.

The application of New York labor laws was required under the
doctrine of interest analysis because the nonprofit required him
to attend training in multiple states, the worker said.  This
argument failed because the laws do not have extraterritorial
reach, the court said.  Even if the interest analysis applied, the
states where the trainee attended training sessions "have a
greater interest in regulating the treatment of employees working
in their states than New York," where the trainee neither worked
nor trained, the court said.

The court rejected the trainee's claim that a central law should
govern working conditions and privileges because the issue is
where the employee works, not where the employee lives.  Because
the trainee "was never employed in or domiciled in New York, he
has even less claim to its statutory protections," it said.

The court rejected the trainee's second argument that the assessor
agreement was sufficiently broad to apply to state law claims
regarding unpaid wages.  New York courts construe contractual
choice-of-law provisions narrowly to not bind parties for non-
contractual causes of action, the federal court said. Thus, the
choice-of-law clause in the agreement "applies only to claims
sounding in contract and not statutory causes of action," it said.

The court rejected the trainee's third argument that the nonprofit
implicitly consented to the application of New York laws by
maintaining its headquarters in New York City, requiring the use
of New York laws through the employment agreement's choice-of-law
provision and relying on New York labor laws to defend against
wage-and-hour claims.  The trainee produced no authority that the
acts amounted to implied consent and neither of the two cases he
cited supported his position, it said.

"If maintaining a New York headquarters constituted consent to the
application of New York statutory laws to all its employees, no
matter their state of employment, it would swallow the presumption
against extraterritoriality, incentivize forum shopping and
inevitably create conflicts with other states' labor law," the
court said.

The nonprofit's response to the trainee's state law claims was not
considered consent, the court said.  The nonprofit responded to
the claims so they could be preserved if its motion failed, which
does not amount to consent, the court said ( Warman v. Am. Nat'l
Standards Inst., 2016 BL 216340, S.D.N.Y., No. 15-CV-5486, 7/6/16
).

Although attendance at mandatory training sessions may not be
compensable under individual state laws, mandatory on-the-job
training of employees, including newly hired workers, generally
counts as compensable time under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Time spent attending employer-sponsored training programs and
instructional meetings may not be counted as hours worked if four
conditions are met:

   -- The meetings are held outside regular working hours.

   -- Attendance is truly voluntary.

   -- The training program or meeting is not directly related to
the employee's job.

   -- The employee does not perform any productive work while
attending the course or meeting.

Employer-provided training for pre-hire trainees generally does
not count as hours worked as long as training is for the benefit
of the trainees, they do not replace regular workers, they are not
entitled to a job at the end of the training and the employer and
the trainees agree that no wages will be paid during the program.


ARTERIORS TOO: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Blair" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IRIS BLAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ARTERIORS TOO, LLC d/b/a ARTERIORS HOME, and MARK
MOUSSA, individually, Case No. 3:16-cv-02295-G (N.D. Tex.,
August 8, 2016), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act in that
the Defendants misclassified her as an exempt employee and failed
to pay her at time and one half her regular rate of pay for hours
worked in excess of 40.

The Plaintiff and "Class Members" are the Defendants' current and
former Customer Service Coordinators, who were allegedly
improperly misclassified as exempt from the protections of the
FLSA.

Arteriors too, LLC, doing business as Arteriors Home, does
business in Texas.  Arteriors Home is a provider of luxury
residential and commercial lighting, wall decor, decorative
accessories, and furniture.  Mark Moussa is the founder, owner and
operator of Arteriors Home.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Allen" Suit Over Pradaxa (R)
---------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN ALLEN v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6070283-S (Conn. Super Ct., Hartford Cty., August 4, 2016),
alleges that the Defendants' product, Pradaxa(R), was unreasonably
defective in design and marketing, considering the utility of the
product and the risk involved in its use.

Pradaxa(R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.  Patients with atrial
fibrillation have an increased risk of stroke.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the risks of bleeding associated with the use of
Pradaxa(R) greatly outweighed its benefits, if any.

Boehringer is a Delaware corporation which has its principal place
of business located in Ridgefield, Connecticut.  Boehringer
International is a foreign corporation with its principal place of
business located in Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.  The Defendants
manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, promoted,
labeled, tested and sold Pradaxa(R) (dabigatran etexilate
mesylate).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone: (203) 610-6393
          Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
          MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
          3 North Second Street, Suite 300
          St. Charles, IL 60174
          Telephone: (630) 232-6333
          Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
          E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


CAPGEMINI NORTH: Violates ERISA, "Bhattacharya" Class Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PRANAV BHATTACHARYA and NAVANEETHA KOOTHAPILLAI, individually and
for all others similarly situated v. CAPGEMINI NORTH AMERICA, INC.
and CAPGEMINI FINANCIAL SERVICES USA, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-07950
(N.D. Ill., August 8, 2016), accuses the Defendants of
transferring the Plaintiffs and other class members to and from
Capgemini India Private Limited or terminated them without any
regard for their rights under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

Specifically, when transferring the Plaintiffs and other putative
class, the Defendants failed to provide the appropriate notice of
the Plaintiffs' right to elect continuation coverage under the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 at the time of
termination or other qualifying events, according to the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs and putative class members are Indian nationals,
who have worked for one or more of the Defendants in the United
States during the past two years and participated in the
Defendants' Group Health Plan.

Capgemini North America, Inc., is a management consulting
corporation that provides consulting, technology and outsourcing
services to its clients in the United States and globally.
Capgemini Financial Services USA, Inc., is a subsidiary of
Capgemini based in Rosemont, Illinois.  CGFS provides management,
consulting and implementation services to financial institutions
across the United States.  The Defendants provided their
employees, including the Plaintiffs and putative class members,
with health care coverage through their Group Health Plan.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com


COLUMBIA COUNTY, AR: Rasberry Seeks Wages Under FLSA and AMWA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE RASBERRY, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. COLUMBIA COUNTY, ARKANSAS, Case No. 1:16-cv-01074-SOH
(W.D. Ark., August 4, 2016), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as a result of the
Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and others
overtime compensation for all hours that they worked in excess of
171 hours in a 28-consecutive-day work period.

Columbia County, Arkansas, operates the Columbia County Jail,
where the Plaintiff is employed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CVS PHARMACY: Faces "Heller" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALISON HELLER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, and CVS 3249
FL, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Case 3:16-cv-01012-TJC-JBT
(Fla. Circ., Flagler County, August 8, 2016), was filed pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate pharmacies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
     Jason M. Melton, Esq.
     WHITE & MELTON, LLC
     One Progress Plaza
     200 Central Avenue, #400
     St. Petersburg, FL 33701
     Phone: (727) 822-1111
     Fax: (727) 898-2001
     E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
             lechneri@theFLlawfirm.com
             shelley@theFLlawfirm.com


EMBRAER SA: Faces "Kukkadapu" Suit for Violating Securities Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
MANIDHAR KUKKADAPU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. EMBRAER S.A., FREDERICO PINHEIRO FLEURY
CURADO, JOSE ANTONIO DE ALMEIDA FILIPPO, and PAULO PENIDO PINTO
MARQUES, Case No. 1:16-cv-06277 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2016), is
brought on behalf of purchasers of Embraer's American Depositary
Receipts between April 16, 2012, and July 28, 2016, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, the complaint states.  Specifically, the Defendants
made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose that:
(i) the Company had paid bribes to officials in the Dominican
Republic to secure contracts for the sale of aircraft; (ii)
Embraer's President and Chief Executive Officer, Frederico
Pinheiro Fleury Curado, was aware of the bribery scheme; (iii) the
foreseeable consequences of the foregoing conduct would cost
Embraer hundreds of millions of dollars; and (iv) as a result of
the foregoing, the Defendants' statements about Embraer's
business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis.

Embraer is incorporated under the laws of Brazil and is
headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.  Embraer designs, develops,
manufactures, and sells aircraft and systems in Brazil, North
America, Latin America, the Asia-Pacific region, Europe, and
internationally.  Founded in 1969, the Company was formerly known
as Embraer-Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Brian Schall, Esq.
          GOLDBERG LAW PC
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (800) 977-7401
          Facsimile: (800) 536-0065
          E-mail: michael@goldberglawpc.com
                  brian@goldberglawpc.com


ERIE INSURANCE: Faces "Carlucci" Lawsuit Over Motorist Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN CARLUCCI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS 458 Valley Road West Grove, PA 19390 v.
ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE 100 Erie Insurance Place Erie, PA 16530
Case No: 160800858 (Penn. Com. Pleas, Philadelphia County, Aug. 8,
2015), arises from a June 8, 2013 motor vehicle accident and the
underinsured motorist claims arising therefrom.

Erie Insurance Exchange is a reciprocal insurance exchange
organized and existing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aaron B. Gorodetzer, Esq.
     SBARBARO LAW OFFICE, LLC
     1221 West Chester Poke
     West Chester, PA 19382
     Phone: (610)344-7300
     Fax: (610) 441-7523

        - and -

     James Haggerty, Esq.
     HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH, P.C.
     1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (267) 350-6600
     Fax: (215) 665-8197

        - and -

     Howard Silverman, Esq.
     KANE & SILVERMAN, P.C.
     2401 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1A5
     Philadelphia, PA 19130
     Phone: (215)232-1000


EVERALBUM INC: Faces Lawsuit in N.J. Alleging TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
ADELE SITT and JACLYN BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. EVERALBUM, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Case No: 3:16-cv-04821-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., August 8, 2016), alleges
that Defendants illegally contacted Plaintiffs and numerous
putative class members on their cellular telephones via text
message in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

EVERALBUM, INC. designs and develops a mobile application to
gather phone, desktop, and Facebook photos all in one place that
is accessible by phone, desktop, and tablet.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ari Marcus, Esq.
     Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
     MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
     1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
     Ocean, NJ 07712
     Phone: (732) 695-3282
     Fax: (732) 298-6256


FCA US: Faces "Brooks" Class Suit Over Defective E-shift System
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR BROOKS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00862-FJG (W.D. Mo., August 8, 2016), alleges that the
Defendant's vehicles with E-shift System are unsafe and pose an
unreasonable risk of harm to drivers, passengers, and bystanders.

According to the complaint, this case concerns the simple task of
shifting a vehicle into Park.  FCA has taken this simple process,
traditionally straightforward and free from confusion, and
implemented a defective and dangerous gear-shifting mechanism.  In
short, FCA replaced the traditional gearshift with a joystick and
failed to consider the implications to consumer safety.

The complaint explains that FCA installed gearshifts in its 2014-
15 Jeep Grand Cherokees, 2012-14 Dodge Chargers, and 2012-14
Chrysler 300 sedans that depart from the traditional "PRND"
gearshift in favor of the Monostable electronic gearshift (the "E-
shift System").  In contrast to a conventional gearshift, the E-
shift System never truly shifts or locks into a gear position, but
instead remains in a centered or neutral position.  As such, the
E-shift System does not provide the tactical or visual feedback
that drivers are accustomed to receiving from conventional
gearshifts.  The E-shift System poses an unreasonable safety
hazard.

FCA US LLC is a Delaware limited liability company wholly owned by
holding company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., a Dutch
corporation headquartered in London, United Kingdom.  FCA's
principal place of business and headquarters is in Auburn Hills,
Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Schultz, III, Esq.
          SCHULTZ & ASSOCIATES LLP
          640 Cepi Drive, Suite A
          Chesterfield, MO 63005
          Telephone: (636) 537-4645
          Facsimile: (636) 537-2599
          E-mail: rschultz@sl-lawyers.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Adam E. Edwards, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 533-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Tyler J. Story, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  aek@wexlerwallace.com
                  tjs@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 North Franklin St., 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Sept. 27 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, on Aug. 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan on behalf of purchasers of Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles N.V. ("FCA" or the "Company") securities during the
period between October 29, 2014, through July 18, 2016, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  Investors who wish to become proactively
involved in the litigation have until September 27, 2016, to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in FCA securities during the Class Period.  Members of
the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company was
artificially manipulating reported vehicle sales figures by
offering dealers financial incentives to report fictional vehicle
sales.

According to the complaint, following January 13, 2016, news
reports of a lawsuit accusing the Company of paying dealers to
improperly inflate vehicle sales numbers and July 18, 2016 news
reports announcing that the U.S. Department of Justice and the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission were
investigating the Company's sales practices, the value of FCA
shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in FCA securities purchased on or after October 29, 2014, and held
through the revelation of negative information during and/or at
the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please visit the website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-
6616.  Brower Piven also encourages anyone with information
regarding the Company's conduct during the period in question to
contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees,
shareholders and others.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.


FLETCHER'S TIRE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Gebhart" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David E. Gebhart, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated v. Fletcher's Tire & Auto Service, Inc., an Arizona
Corporation, Gerald Fletcher and Jane Doe Fletcher, husband and
wife; Jack Smith and Jane Doe Smith, husband and wife, Case No.
2:16-cv-02675-ESW (D. Ariz., August 8, 2016), alleges that
Fletcher's failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Fletcher's is an Arizona corporation.  Fletcher's offers auto
repair and service for customers' vehicles.  Gerald Fletcher and
Jane Doe Fletcher are husband and wife.  Gerald Fletcher is the
President and Chief Executive Officer and Director of Fletcher's.
Jack Smith and Jane Doe Smith are husband and wife, and Jack Smith
is the Secretary of Fletcher's.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN
          & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: tfrankel@bffb.com

               - and -

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN
          & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-7748
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com


FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Faces ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a plan participant has filed a class-action lawsuit alleging
the plan's investment committee breached its fiduciary duties.

Marlon H. Cryer filed a complaint on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated and on behalf of the Franklin Templeton 401(k)
Retirement plan on July 28 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against Franklin Resources Inc.,
the Franklin Templeton 401 (k) Retirement Plan Investment
Committee and Does 1-25 alleging violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he
sustained damages as the result of the plan administrator
investing on an imprudent investment option.  The plaintiff holds
Franklin Resources Inc., the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement
Plan Investment Committee and Does 1-25 responsible because the
defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties by not
investing in better-performing and lower-cost funds.  The suit
states that during the class period, the plan lost several million
dollars.

The plaintiff seeks disgorgement, restore all loses to the plan,
monetary relief, all legal fees and interest, and any other relief
as the court deems just.  He is represented by Gregory Y. Porter
and Mark G. Boyko -- mboyko@baileyglasser.com -- of Bailey &
Glasser LLP in Washington, D.C.; Mark P. Kindall and Robert A.
Izard of Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP in West Hartford, Connecticut;
and Joseph A. Creitz -- lisa@creitzserebin.com -- and Lisa S.
Serebin of Creitz & Serebin LLP in San Francisco.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-04265-EDL


GATE GOURMET: Faces "Gates" Suit Alleging Violations of Wage Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANTEL GATES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. GATE GOURMET, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1 to 100, inclusive, Case No: BC 629819 (Cal. Super. Ct., August
8, 2016), seeks recovery for Defendants' violations of the
California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code,
and the applicable Wage Orders issued by the California Industrial
Welfare Commission.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Emil Davtyan, Esq.
     DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
     21900 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 300
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (818) 992-2935
     Fax: (818) 975-5525
     E-mail: Emil@davtyanlaw.com


GLASSDOOR: Faces Class Action Over Terms of Service Email Update
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Conger, writing for TechCrunch, reports that Glassdoor began
emailing its users to let them know of an update to the site's
terms of service.  But rather than BCC'ing its anonymous
reviewers, Glassdoor dumped their email addresses into a regular
old CC field, effectively outing at least 600,000 members of the
site.

Now, one of those outed users is suing.

Melissa Levine, a Los Angeles-based television researcher, filed a
class-action lawsuit against Glassdoor on Aug. 1, claiming the
employment review site violated state law by including her email
address in the CC field and exposed her to potential retribution
from her former employers.  A Glassdoor spokesperson said the
company has not yet been served and therefore cannot comment on
the case.

"That the strict anonymity of users on Glassdoor could be so
carelessly and recklessly violated and cast aside in such an
amateurish fashion should make us all question the extent to which
Glassdoor places profit over people," Ben Meiselas, an attorney
for Levine, told TechCrunch in a statement.

Glassdoor encourages employees to review their current and former
employers anonymously -- users can't view other reviews without
first adding their own.  Many of the reviews on Glassdoor are
perfectly polite, but negative reviews often pop up, and it
appears that Levine might have left a few unhappy reviews of her
own.

The company acknowledged the mistake in a statement shortly after
the terms of service email update was sent.

"As we've previously disclosed, a small percentage of Glassdoor
registered users' email addresses were viewable in the "to" field
to a subset of other users who received a routine email.  No other
information was viewable or revealed.  We have directly apologized
to the affected users.  We do take the privacy of our users very
seriously and are taking corrective steps to ensure this doesn't
happen again.  This certainly doesn't live up to our own
expectations of who we are and what we represent," a Glassdoor
spokesperson told TechCrunch.

The email went out to approximately 2 percent of Glassdoor's 30
million active monthly users and was sent in batches of 1,000
users at a time, so each user could see the email address of 999
other Glassdoor users.

Glassdoor just raised a $40 million round in June and is valued at
$1 billion.  The terms of service update included a provision that
forbids users from engaging in class action lawsuits, Meiselas
explained.  "The email where they violated the privacy of its
users was the terms of service update with the arbitration
provision. It is unconscionable to put forward an arbitration
provision and in the same act (same email) violate the law," he
said in an email.

Users can opt out of the arbitration clause by mailing a form to
Glassdoor by September 12.


GLENDA'S INC: Holden Wants to Recoup Unpaid Back Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELYNDA HOLDEN, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. GLENDA'S, INC., a Domestic Profit Corporation and GLENDA
TAYLOR, Individually, Case No. 2:16-cv-00194-WCO (N.D. Ga., August
8, 2016), is brought to recover alleged unpaid back wages, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory
relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Glenda's, Inc., is a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation with its
principal place of business in Cleveland, Georgia.  Glenda Taylor,
a resident of White County, Georgia, owns and operates the
Company.  The Defendants had two or more employees handling,
selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that had been
moved in or produced for commerce, such as food, drinks,
beverages, cash registers, pots, pans, dishwashing equipment,
telephones and other kitchen, food preparation and office
materials and tools.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


GOING GREEN: Ramos Wants to Get Damages for Retaliatory Discharge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YANIEL RAMOS, and other similarly situated individuals v. GOING
GREEN CONSTRUCTION INC., RUBI ORTEGA, and ANGEL PRIETO, Case No.
1:16-cv-23348-KMW (S.D. Fla., August 4, 2016), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliatory discharge
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Going Green Construction Inc. is a Florida company having its main
place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.  The Individual
Defendants reside in Miami-Dade, Florida.  The Company operates as
an organization, which sells and markets its services and goods to
customers from throughout the United States and also provides its
services for goods sold and transported from across state lines of
other states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


HEARTWARE INT'L: Huttemann Challenges Proposed Sale to Medtronic
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN M. HUTTEMANN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TIMOTHY BARBERICH, CHADWICK CORNELL, CYNTHIA
FELDMANN, DOUGLAS GODSHALL, SETH HARRISON, RAY LARKIN, JR.,
STEPHEN OESTERLE, ROBERT STOCKMAN, ROBERT THOMAS, DENIS WADE, and
HEARTWARE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-11618-DJC (D.
Mass., August 8, 2016), accuses the Defendants of breaching their
fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt to sell the Company
to Medtronic, Inc. and its parent corporation, Medtronic plc for
an inadequate consideration.

On June 27, 2016, Medtronic and the Company announced that they
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 27,
2016, by which Medtronic, through its affiliate Medtronic
Acquisition Corp. commenced a tender offer to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of HeartWare for $58.00 per share in cash.  The
Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $1.1 billion and
is expected to close during Medtronic's second fiscal quarter
ending October 28, 2016.  The Proposed Transaction was unanimously
approved by the Company's Board of Directors.

Medtronic and its affiliates commenced the tender offer on
July 26, 2016.  Unless extended or terminated earlier, the tender
offer is scheduled to close at 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Time) on August
22, 2016.

HeartWare is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Framingham, Massachusetts.  HeartWare is named
as a defendant for the purposes of providing full and complete
relief.  HeartWare develops and manufactures miniaturized
implantable heart pumps, or ventricular assist device, to treat
patients suffering from advanced heart failure.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Relevant non-party Medtronic is a Minnesota Corporation that is
owned by to Medtronic plc.  Medtronic plc, headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland, is one of the world's largest medical technology,
services, and solutions companies.  Medtronic Acquisition Corp. is
a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Medtronic
that was created for the purposes of effectuating the Proposed
Transaction.

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
          Facsimile: (888) 628-6746
          E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          Michael H. Rosner, Esq.
          Justin G. Sherman, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com
                  mrosner@zlk.com
                  jsherman@zlk.com


HONEST CO: "Glover" Class Suit Consolidated in SLS Marketing MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Amy Glover v. The Honest Company, Inc., and
Jessica Warren a/k/a Jessica Alba, Case No. 3:16-cv-812-W-NLS, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.  The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:16-cv-05855-AB-RAO to the proceeding.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In
re: The Honest Company, Inc., Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS)
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2:16-ml-02719-
AB-RAO.

The actions in the litigation share factual issues arising from
allegations that Honest labeled and marketed certain of its
household cleaning product -- namely, its laundry detergent, dish
soap, and multi-surface cleaner -- in a false and misleading
manner.  Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that Honest
advertises the products as free of sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS),
even though the products' ingredients include sodium coco sulfate
(SCS).  According to the plaintiffs, SCS necessarily contains SLS.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          Ashley R. Rifkind, Esq.
          Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
                  arifkind@robbinsarroyo.com
                  lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jcakfitzgeraldlaw.com

Defendant The Honest Company, Inc., is represented by:

          William P. Donovan, Jr., Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          1333 Second Avenue Suite 400
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-4100
          Telephone: (310) 883-6400
          Facsimile: (310) 883-6500
          E-mail: wdonovan@cooley.com


IT'S JUST LUNCH: Dating Website Allegedly Uses False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
WFTV Action 9 reports that a Sanford woman claims a dating service
for professional singles took her $2,000, but never delivered the
perfect matches it promised.

Action 9 found lots of complaints against It's Just Lunch, and a
class action lawsuit it just settled for millions of dollars.

Action 9's Todd Ulrich tracked down the company about the money it
refused to return.

The customer who contacted Action 9 wants to remain anonymous
because she is embarrassed and angry about what happened after
joining It's Just Lunch, which is nationwide dating service
promising to match busy professional singles.

She told Action 9, the service did not deliver the dates that
matched her preferences as the company claimed.

"They use false advertising.  They use manipulation.  All around
just a bad service," the woman said.

She had signed a contract and paid $2,000 upfront for It's Just
Lunch to provide up to four dates by a personal cupid.  The
company's advertisement promises individual attention.

The Sanford woman who contacted Action 9 said after 10 months, the
company only matched her with one very bad date.  She said her
complaints were not resolved.

"I don't think they have anybody to match me with at all," the
woman told Action 9.

It's Just Lunch members who are in Central Florida are serviced by
a Broward County franchise and Action 9 found it has a troubling
record.  It's rated F at the Better Business Bureau in South
Florida.

The reasons for its rating involved unresolved complaints and
refund denials.  Michele Mason with the BBB, said many customers
claimed it didn't deliver promised matches.

"They're not necessarily meeting the type of people they expected,
based on the initial call they had," Mr. Mason said.

The corporation has agreed to settle a $64 million class action
lawsuit after customers claimed the company ignored their dating
preferences.  The settlement would only offered free vouchers for
more dates and that's something the customer who contacted Action
9 called "worthless."

"They just refused to give me my money back," the woman said.

An It's Just Lunch corporate manager told Action 9 that client
satisfaction is extremely important, and it's investigating.

For any dating service, consumers should considering paying with a
credit card, so you can dispute the charge if issues aren't
resolved in the first 60 days.


IT'S JUST LUNCH: Dating Service Fails to Deliver Promises
---------------------------------------------------------
Jason Knowles and Ann Pistone, writing for WLS, reports that not
everyone looking for love can be on "The Bachelorette".  A local
woman told the I-Team a dating service let her down, and she's now
demanding a $3,800 refund.

Jacqueline Peters is a busy doctor and a divorced mother of three
involved in a dating service dispute.  This bachelorette said that
matchmakers set her up with men who were missing the qualities she
specifically requested.

"It makes me really upset.  Especially for this amount of money,"
Ms. Peters said.

Ms. Peters said she has five qualities she was looking for in a
man.  She shared them in writing with the dating service "It's
Just Lunch" when she purchased a $3,800, six-month membership.

"I said, 'I'm a professional.  I'm pretty tall.  It's pretty hard
to find someone my height, my educational background.' She said,
'Describe what you're looking for,' so I said, 'Somebody a little
over 5'8", somebody ideally 6' or taller, thin build.  I like to
run and travel, somebody with the similar interest.  Talk, dark
and handsome."

But the Vernon hills doctor says on the first date: "I meet this
guy.  He's at least 2 inches shorter than me and 10 years older
than myself . . . It wasn't what I was looking for."

And she also says a second date was similar.  She claims that both
men were shorter than her and not "health conscious" like she had
requested.

"As far as height, I've always dated taller men.  I like to wear
heels, maybe an inch or two.  I just like my men just a little bit
taller.  I put the 6-foot guideline.  After the second guy, I
said, "Do you have anyone my height?" She said, "No."

Ms. Peters said she then asked to expand her search to Milwaukee.

"They said they don't have anybody.  I said I would like my money
back because this is not what I was told," Ms. Peters said.

But the contract she signed said that "membership fees are
nonrefundable".

Ms. Peters filed a charge-back dispute with her credit card.  It
was denied after It's Just Lunch responded to the credit card
company saying: "IJL does not issue refunds outside of the
detailed cancellation policy that is outlined in the contract as
well, per Illinois state law."

But the contract does say partial refunds may be available, at the
company's discretion, if It's Just Lunch can't provide "an average
minimum of one introduction per month based on the criteria
established by the client."

"I felt like I was upfront with them.  This is what I'm looking
for, can you provide this?" Ms. Peters said.

The owner of It's Just Lunch Chicago declined an on-camera
interview, but sent a one-page statement saying employees listen
to customer concerns and they cannot guarantee chemistry, a long
term relationship or marriage, and matchmaking differs from online
dating in that it is not just about checking boxes.

They also added, "We presented Ms. Peters the details of her first
two matches and she did not decline either of them."

The company also said that Ms. Peters did not contact ILJ's Client
Service Manager as the part of the process agreed to in the
contract.

But Ms. Peters is not the only disappointed dater.  In January,
some affiliates of It's Just Lunch entered a preliminary
settlement phase for $60 million in vouchers and $4.75 million for
customers from other states who took part in a class action
lawsuit. It also outlines an agreement to change business
practices.  The independently-owned Chicago franchise was not
involved in the suit.  And the local company adds that: "None of
the claims in the New York City class-action suit dating back nine
years are specific to It's Just Lunch Chicago."

The lawsuit claims the company "almost completely ignores the
customer's stated preferences" like age range, religion or marital
status.

IJL said: "We are very pleased to have reached a preliminary
resolution for these claims . . . Having this behind us enables us
to focus on what we do best: using our extensive experience and
proven methods to help our clients make positive personal
connections."

Ms. Peters said she's going to date all on her own now.

"I was taken for a ride and I really don't want anyone to go
through this," she said.

In the statement the owner of It's Just Lunch Chicago also said
Ms. Peters would have felt differently if she would have given the
process more of a chance and experienced more than just two dates.

It's Just Lunch in Chicago also pointed out its A+ rating with the
Chicago Better Business Bureau.


JACARANDA CLUB: Faces "Bruton" Suit Over Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
FALEMA BRUTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JACARANDA CLUB, LLC d/b/a SAPPHIRE NEW YORK;
JACARANDA HOLDINGS, LLC; CLUB AT 60TH ST., INC.; JG CLUB HOLDINGS,
LLC; DAVID MICHAEL TALLA; JAMES MARK TALLA; JEFFREY WASSERMAN;
GLEN PETER BERNARDI; PETER FEINSTEIN; RUDY GUERRINO; and any other
related entities, Case No. 156619/2016 (N.Y., August 8, 2016), was
brought pursuant to the New York Labor Law, the New York Codes,
Rules, and Regulations in order to recover alleged unpaid minimum
wages, illegally retained tips, and improperly withheld wages owed
to Plaintiff.

Defendants operate an adult entertainment establishment under the
name "SAPPHIRE NEW YORK."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JAMES HARDIE: Claimants Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adina Thorn on Aug. 2 disclosed that the lawyer leading the $250
million plus class action against James Hardie companies says the
unanimous Supreme Court decision rejecting the application of the
10-year limitation period on product liability claims is extremely
good news for the owners of defective buildings in
New Zealand.

Adina Thorn, of Adina Thorn Lawyers, says the 5-nil judgment in
favour of the Ministry of Education in relation to its claim
against Carter Holt for "Shadowclad" cladding, means that there is
a green light on the bringing of building products and building
material claims. These claims are not subject to the 10-year
limitation period set out in the Building Act 1991/2004.

Adina says her legal team, headed by two Queen's Counsel, has
watched for the outcome of the Ministry of Education/Carter Holt
case, which now means that any "10 year" defense does not apply.
This removes one big potential "roadblock" in claimants bringing
actions against building manufacturers and suppliers.

"This judgment confirmed the view that these types of product
liability claims are not claims relating to "building work. They
are product liability claims"".

"It removes any 10 year defense under the Building Act 1991/2004."

The James Hardie class action (www.goodcladding.co.nz) is funded
by the UK's largest litigation funder: Harbour Litigation Funding.

"This means the action is hugely resourced in terms of legal and
building experts as Harbour has put its massive financial backing
behind it."

"Our action involves probably 1,000 claimants and more than 300
buildings.  These buildings suffer significant issues and the
extensive health issues arising from these is a real concern.  In
particular the medical concerns due to "black mould" are
particularly worrying for our claimants."

"We believe the decision will accelerate the legal processes
required for us to be able to bring justice to our claimants who
have in many instances had their equity in the properties
destroyed through no fault of their own."

"Since the Supreme Court's decision we have had further approaches
from owners who want to join our action.  We are happy to consider
the viability of registrations made to: www.goodcladding.co.nz."

Australian-listed manufacturer James Hardie has spent many years
in court rooms defending its use of asbestos in Australia.  The NZ
Good Cladding action was filed in December last year and is likely
to be one of the largest actions before the New Zealand Courts. 2

Adina says the funded class action she is leading means building
owners can be part of a well-resourced claim without facing any
out-of-pocket expenses, while gaining the opportunity to share in
any compensation and damages that are secured by her team.

"Our claimants understand that Harbour Litigation Funding has a
rigorous evaluation processes and they will only apply their
resources to claims they believe will be successful."

Further details of the Plaster Cladding action can be found on
www.goodcladding.co.nz and www.adinathorn.co.nz

The full details of the Carter Holt Harvey, Minister of Education
decision can be found on www.courtsofnz.govt.nz


JEFFREY KATZENBERG: Teamsters Local Sues Over Comcast Merger Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 677 HEALTH SERVICES & INSURANCE PLAN, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of DREAMWORKS
ANIMATION SKG, INC. v. JEFFREY KATZENBERG, Case No. 12619 (Del.
Ch., August 3, 2016), is a shareholder suit over a merger
agreement with Comcast Corporation.

DreamWorks is a global family entertainment company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
     Michael J. Barry, Esq.
     Joseph Christensen, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
     123 Justison Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 622-7000

        - and -

     Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
     Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
     John Vielandi, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     1251 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020
     Phone: (212) 554-1400

        - and -

     Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
     Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
     John Blythe, Esq.
     HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE, LLP
     185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 213-8311


LUDI BRUCA: Violates FLSA and NYLL, "Librado" Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
HERMINIO SANTIAGO LIBRADO, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. LUDI BRUCA, INC., d/b/a CAFE
EVERGREEN; FRANK MOY; and MONIQUE L. SOON; jointly and severally,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06186 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2016), alleges that
the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Minimum
Wage Act and the New York Labor Law and that the Defendants are
liable to the Plaintiff and party plaintiffs for unpaid or
underpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation.

Ludi Bruca, Inc., doing business as Cafe Evergreen, is a New York
business corporation.  The Individual Defendants are owners,
shareholders, officers, or managers of the Company.  The
Defendants' business is a full-service restaurant doing business
as Cafe Evergreen and located in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
                  bsherr@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com


MAC COSMETICS: Donohue Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY DONOHUE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. M.A.C. COSMETICS INC., MAKE-UP ART COSMETICS INC.,
MAKE-UP ART COSMETICS (U.S.), INC., and MAKE-UP ART COSMETICS (NEW
YORK), INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-04418 (E.D.N.Y., August 8, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

M.A.C. Cosmetics is engaged in the business of make-up artistry
and has a place of business in Brooklyn, New York, where the
Plaintiff worked.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil M. Frank, Esq.
          FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          500 Bi-County Blvd., Suite 465
          Farmingdale, NY 11735
          Telephone: (631) 756-0400
          E-mail: nfrank@laborlaws.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Nov. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 1 disclosed that the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of common stock of MagnaChip
Semiconductor Corp. (MX):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF
CLASS ACTION

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF MAGNACHIP
SEMICONDUCTOR CORP. ("MAGNACHIP") BETWEEN FEBRUARY 1, 2012 AND
FEBRUARY 12, 2015, INCLUDING PURCHASERS OF MAGNACHIP COMMON STOCK
PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO MAGNACHIP'S FEBRUARY 6, 2013 FOLLOW-
ON PUBLIC STOCK OFFERING

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, that a
hearing will be held on November 21, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. in
Courtroom 9 before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, United States
District Judge of the Northern District of California, 450 Golden
Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 (the "Settlement Hearing"):
(1) to determine whether the Settlement, consisting of the sum of
$23,500,000.00 (Twenty-Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
and Zero Cents) in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) to finally determine whether the
Order and Final Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should
be entered, dismissing the Complaint on the merits and with
prejudice, and to determine whether the release by the Settlement
Class of the Released Persons, as set forth in the Stipulation,
should be ordered, along with a permanent injunction barring
efforts to bring any Released Claims extinguished by the
Settlement against any Released Persons; (3) to finally determine
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable and should be
approved by the Court; (4) to consider the application of Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel on behalf of themselves and Plaintiffs'
Counsel for an award of Attorneys' Fees in an amount not to exceed
25% of the Gross Settlement Fund and an award of expenses of not
more than $235,000.00, and for an Award to Lead Plaintiff Keith
Thomas of no more than $1,500.00; (5) to consider Settlement Class
Members' objections to the Settlement, whether submitted
previously in writing or presented orally at the Settlement
Hearing by Settlement Class Members (or by counsel on their
behalf); and (6) to rule upon such other matters as the Court may
deem appropriate.

If you purchased common stock of MagnaChip between February 1,
2012 and February 12, 2015, including common stock purchased
pursuant and/or traceable to MagnaChip's February 6, 2013 follow-
on public stock offering, your rights may be affected by the
Settlement of this Action.  If you have not received a copy of the
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Partial Settlement of Class Action
and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain
copies by writing to MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp. Securities
Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services, Claims Administrator,
P.O. Box 230, 600 North Jackson Street - Suite 3, Media, PA 19063;
by calling the Claims Administrator at 1-866-274-4004; or by
visiting the Claims Administrator's website at
www.strategicclaims.net/MagnaChip.  If you are a member of the
Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release no
later than December 21, 2016, establishing that you are entitled
to recovery to the Claims Administrator.  Unless you submit a
written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Action whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim
and Release.  If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you
must submit a request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator,
so that it is received no later than October 31, 2016, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Partial Settlement of Class Action.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel's request for an award of Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses, or request for an Award to Lead Plaintiff must be in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Partial Settlement of Class Action and so that it is
received no later than October 31, 2016, to each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3489

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Settlement Class
Marc I. Gross, Esq.
Michael J. Wernke, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016

MagnaChip's Counsel
Daniel J. Kramer, Esq.
Jacqueline P. Rubin, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Plaintiff's Counsel:

Michael J. Wernke, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel.: (212) 661-1100
Fax: (212) 661-8665

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: JULY 18, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


METHODIST HEALTH: Nurse Files FLSA Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
Sabriya Rice, writing for The Dallas Morning News, reports that a
nurse has filed a collective action lawsuit against Dallas'
Methodist Health under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that
the system routinely docks nurses' pay for lunch breaks they don't
take.

The case calls into question a long-standing policy that fails to
properly compensate non-exempt nurses for work performed,
according to a document filed on July 28 with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.

"The hospital assumes that nurses have 30 minutes every shift to
take an uninterrupted, bona fide meal break," said
Galvin Kennedy, the personal injury and medical malpractice
attorney representing the plaintiff, Robert J. Straka.

"Any hospital that institutes automatic meal deductions for
employees that directly impact patient care runs the risk of not
paying them according to the law," Mr. Kennedy said.

According to the claim, nurses are required to remain responsible
for patient care throughout their shift, and they may frequently
be pulled away from breaks to respond to patients, doctors and
perform duties.

"You can't ignore patients when you're taking a break and you're
still on duty," Mr. Kennedy said.  "That is why they have a valid
claim."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of as many as 1,000 nurses, but
Mr. Kennedy predicts that four times as many could be affected if
the court certifies the case as a class action.

It would affect nurses who were either interrupted or subject to
interruptions during their meal breaks while employed at several
Methodist Hospitals over the past three years, including Methodist
Dallas Medical Center, Methodist Rehabilitation Hospital and
Methodist Hospitals of Dallas locations.

Methodist Health System said it is aware of the lawsuit but does
not comment on pending litigation.

Mr. Kennedy, who is with the Houston-based firm Kennedy Hodges
LLP, filed a similar claim this summer against the Memorial
Hermann Health System.

Hospital policies generally support nurses' coverage during
breaks.  Often what is used is a "check in" and "check out"
protocol, said Cindy Zolnierek, executive director of the Texas
Nurses Association.

However, the automatic deduction of a lunch break has been
instituted by some facilities as a matter of convenience, so that
busy staffers don't have to add another task to their to-do list.

"The lawsuit demonstrates that there is some risk to doing that,"
Ms. Zolnierek said.  "It may be more cumbersome to log in and out,
but it's also more real time."


MIKA SUSHI: Faces "Melendrez" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALMA MELENDREZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, v. MIKA SUSHI, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
AMURA JAPANESE RESTAURANT, INC., a Florida for-profit corporation,
and SCARLET CHUNG, an individual, Case No: 6:16-cv-01414-PGB-TBS
(M.D. Fla., August 8, 2016), seeks recovery of alleged unpaid
minimum wage, overtime wage, and liquidated damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Mika Shushi, LLC owns the Amura Restaurant at which Plaintiff
Melendrez was employed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
     17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 358-6800
     Fax: (305) 358-6808
     E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com
             legal@kuvinlaw.com


MINNESOTA: Human Services Dept. Faces "Gordon" ADA Violation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Gordon, by her Guardians Debra and Marvin Gordon; Tenner
Murphy, by his guardians Kay and Richard Murphy; Marrie Bottelson;
Dionne Swanson; and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. The
Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of
Minnesota; and Emily Johnson Piper in her Capacity as Commissioner
of The Minnesota Department of Human Services, CASE 0:16-cv-02623-
ADM-SER (D. Minn., August 3, 2016), alleges violation of the
integration mandate in Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act by denying Plaintiffs the choice where to live through its
discriminatory residential service system.

The Minnesota Department of Human Services is the statewide agency
charged with overseeing and setting policies for Minnesota's
Medicaid programs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin H. Perl, Esq.
     Sean Burke, Esq.
     MID-MINNESOTA LEGAL AID MINNESOTA DISABILITY LAW CENTER
     430 First Avenue North, Suite 300
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 746-3759
     E-mail: jperl@mylegalaid.org
             sburke@mylegalaid.org

        - and -

     Joseph W. Anthony, Esq.
     Steven M. Pincus, Esq.
     Laura A. Farley, Esq.
     Peter J. McElligott, Esq.
     ANTHONY OSTLUND BAER & LOUWAGIE P.A.
     90 South 7th Street
     3600 Wells Fargo Center
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: 612-349-6969
     E-mail: janthony@anthonyostlund.com
             spincus@anthonyostlund.com
             lfarley@anthonyostlund.com
             pmcelligott@anthonyostlund.com


MINES MANAGEMENT: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Aug. 1 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington on behalf of holders of Mines
Management, Inc. ("Mines") common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Mines by Hecla Mining Company ("Hecla")
announced on May 24, 2016 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
Mines, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Hecla, is
captioned Assad v. Mines Management, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00256-
SMJ.

To discuss this action or ask any questions concerning this notice
or rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth
D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter
Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803, by telephone at (888)
969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com; or at:
http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/mines-management-inc-
mgn/.

On May 23, 2016, Mines entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Hecla.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, Hecla will acquire Mines, and Mines'
shareholders will receive 0.2218 shares of Hecla for each share of
Mines that they own (the "Proposed Transaction").

The Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
support for the Proposed Transaction, on June 29, 2016, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in the Form S-4
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
Registration Statement, which recommends that Mines stockholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material
information necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed
decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including
material information with respect to the process and events
leading up to the Proposed Transaction, Mines' financial
projections, and the opinions and analyses of Mines' financial
advisor.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of Mines common stock.

To serve as lead plaintiff, inform the Court no later than
September 30, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware, and
Garden City, New York, regularly prosecutes securities class,
derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation, and
corporate governance litigation, on behalf of shareholders in
states and federal courts throughout the United States.


MODESTO, CA: Employee Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a city of Modesto employee has filed a class-action suit
alleging he wasn't paid overtime wages.

Michael Charles Beidleman filed a complaint on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals on July 28 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California against the city of
Modesto alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he worked
for more than 40 hours per week without being paid any overtime
premiums.  The plaintiff holds city of Modesto responsible because
the defendant allegedly failed to pay any overtime wages of time-
and-one-half to the plaintiff despite working more than 40 hours.

The plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime compensation and interest,
injunctive relief against the defendant, order to notify all
potential class members, all legal fees and any other relief as
the court deems just.  He is represented by David E. Mastagni,
Isaac S. Stevens, and Ace T. Tate of Mastagni Holstedt APC in
Sacramento.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 1:16-cv-01100-DAD-SKO


NIANTIC INC: New Jersey Resident Files Pokemon Go Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kartikay Mehrotra, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that a
New Jersey resident with a pocket monster in his backyard may be
the first to sue Niantic Inc. and Nintendo Co. for unleashing
Pokemon Go across the U.S., claiming that players are coming to
his home uninvited in their race to "catch 'em all."

The West Orange man alleges the companies have created a nuisance
with their GPS-based game and seeks class-action status on behalf
of all Americans whose properties have been trespassed upon by
players in search of Pokemon Go monsters.

The complaint includes references to Pokemon hunters parading into
an Alabama cemetery and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in
Washington and cites a Massachusetts homeowner visited more than a
dozen times within hours of the game's release last month.

Pokemon Go was developed by San Francisco-based Niantic, with some
input from Nintendo. While excitement over the game's popularity
at one point more the doubled Nintendo's market value, shares have
since corrected as the company pared back expectations, saying
financial impact will be "limited."

The game's user map places Pokemon gyms and Pokestops on and
adjacent to private properties "without the consent of the
properties' owners," according to the complaint filed on July 29
by Jeffrey Marder in federal court in Oakland, California.  "At
least five individuals knocked on plaintiff's door, informed
plaintiff that there was a Pokemon in his backyard, and asked for
access to plaintiff's backyard in order to 'catch' the Pokemon."

The case is Marder v. Niantic Inc., 16-cv-04300, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California (Oakland).


NUTERRA MANAGEMENT: Faces "Rafael" Lawsuit Over FLSA "Violation"
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL RAFAEL on his own behalf and others similarly situated, v.
NUTERRA MANAGEMENT, LLC., and, LEGOMATIC CONSTRUCTION, LLC. Case
No: 8:16-cv-02265-SDM-TBM (M.D. Fla., August 8, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Nuterra Management, LLC operates in the management services
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     W. John Gadd, Esq.
     Band Of America Building
     2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste. 250
     Clearwater, FL 33762
     Phone: (727) 524-6300
     E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Indonesian Seaweed Farmers to File Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Dunlevy, writing for The Guardian, reports that more
than 13,000 Indonesian seaweed farmers are launching a $200
million class action against  PTTEP Australasia they claim was
responsible for Australia's worst offshore oil spill, which sent
millions of liters of oil towards their shores.

The action that was set to be filed in the federal court in Sydney
on Aug. 3 follows a seven-year fight for justice by Timor Sea
communities, who say their lives changed dramatically for the
worse after the 2009 Montara disaster.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers' class actions principal, Ben Slade,
said the Montara rig operator, PTTEP Australasia, must be held
accountable for the avoidable oil spill and the devastation it had
caused Australia's neighbours.

"The operator of the oil rig has a serious case to answer for
cutting corners that endangered lives, the environment and the
livelihoods of thousands of seaweed farmers," he said in a
statement.

The farmers from the islands of West Timor and Rote were making a
decent living from growing seaweed for cosmetics and other
industries, but saw production plummet soon after the 74-day
spill.

The lead plaintiff, Daniel Sanda, 58, said that in September 2009,
he noticed oil and a large number of dead fish in the waters
around his seaweed crop at Oenggaut, a village in Rote.

It spelled disaster for his family.

"If, on the first day you noticed oil on the water, by the next
day your seaweed would turn white, and the next day it would be
totally dead," he said. "It was completely confusing to us and
very hard for me. "

"I had to think about my family, and it became so hard to live a
normal life."

Seaweed had been a boon for villagers like Sanda, with the income
from the healthy harvests allowing him to send three of his five
children to university.

The industry hasn't bounced back and Sanda hopes for compensation
for years of lost income.

"I just hope it will succeed," he said.  "Until this day, we can't
grow seaweed as successfully as before."

Josias Ferroh was one of the pioneers of seaweed farming on Rote.

Several years of successful harvests allowed him to make modest
improvements to his simple home, and send his eldest child to
university.

Like Sanda, in September 2009 his seaweed began to die.

"It happened so suddenly, I thought it must have been a disease,"
Ferroh said.

The effects have not only been economic, but some people in West
Timor and Rote have reported skin lesions and respiratory problems
after coming into contact with water.

Community advocate Ferdi Tanoni has spent years campaigning for
the Australian and Indonesian governments to launch an independent
environmental study in the region.

In 2014, the Indonesian government directly requested cooperation
from Canberra, which said it did not have jurisdiction.

Tanoni said there was a sense of relief in West Timor that there
was finally action.

"It is now seven years, less 18 days, since the spill," he said.
"For all that time, these people have been waiting for justice."

PTTEP Australasia's own study found no oil had reached Indonesia's
coast or inshore waters.  The company has been contacted for
comment.

In 2012, a Darwin court fined the company $510,000 for the spill.

It began on August 21, 2009, with a dramatic explosion and fire on
the West Atlas rig, 250km off Australia's coast.

An estimated 300,000 liters of oil a day spewed into the sea until
the leak was plugged on November 3, 2009.

The federal government held a commission of inquiry into the
event, and no evidence was found of long-term damage to
Australia's reefs and coasts.

A PTTEP Australasia spokesman said the company had always accepted
responsibility for the spill.

"While PTTEP Australasia believes the class action filed in
Australia on behalf of the communities of Nusa Tenggara Timor is
misguided, we nevertheless respect their right to lodge this
claim," a statement said.

The company stood by the research it had ordered in the wake of
the incident.

The satellite imagery, aerial surveys and trajectory modelling
found the majority of oil (98%) remained in Australian waters, it
said.

"We are confident the results of these independent studies would
stand up to the highest scrutiny," the statement said.

"As would our assertion that it is reasonable to extrapolate from
the studies that, if the reefs closest to Montara where the oil
and dispersant concentrations were at their greatest did not show
lasting impacts, then it is highly improbable that the seas and
coastline of Nusa Tenggara Timor would have been impacted."

QES WIRELINE: Faces Suit in Tex. Alleging Violations of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN NORMAN, BRIAN KEITH BACCUS, DONNIE HEATER, AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC 216(B), v. QES WIRELINE LLC, d/b/a
QUINTANA ENERGY SERVICES LP, d/b/a ARCHER PRESSURE SERVICES, f/k/a
ARCHER WIRELINE LLC Case No: 4:16-cv-02396 (S.D. Tex., August 8,
2016), was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

QES wireline provides a full range of cased-hole wireline service
to the Permian Basin, Mid-Continent, South Texas, Ark-La-Tex and
Gulf Coast areas from current locations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     J. Derek Braziele, Esq.
     J. Forester, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010
     E-mail: http://www.overtimelawyer.com

        - and -

     Jack Siegel, Esq.
     SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
     10440 N. Central Expy, Suite 1040
     Dallas, TX 75231
     Phone: (214) 706-0834
     Fax: (469) 339-0204
     E-mail: http://www.siegellawgroup.biz


QUAKER OATS: "Gates" Consumer Suit Transferred to Cal. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA GATES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, Case No: 1:16-cv-01944-NLH-
JS (April 7, 2016), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on August 3, 2016.

The case is one of four putative class actions pending in various
federal courts against defendant, The Quaker Oats Company,
alleging that statements on the packaging of certain Quaker Maple
& Brown Sugar oatmeal products are misleading because those
products purportedly do not contain maple syrup or maple sugar.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen Patrick Denittis, Esq.
     Denittis Osefchen, PC
     5 Greentree Centre
     525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
     Marlton, NJ 08053

        - and -

     Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
     Selina Miriam Ellis, Esq.
     WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
     One Riverfront Plaza
     1037 Raymond Blvd.
     6th Floor
     Newark, NJ 07102

        - and -

     Andrew S. Tulumello, Esq.
     Jason R. Meltzer, Esq.
     Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
     1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
     WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036

        - and -

     Matthew A. Hoffman, Esq.
     GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
     333 South Grand Avenue
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197


QUANTUM TRANSPORTATION: Sued for Violations Wage and Hour Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICKEY GAGNON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. QUANTUM TRANSPORTATION LLC, ANDREY BORZYKIN, and
ALIAKSEI RUDY, Case No. 16-2256 (Mass. Cmmw. Ct., August 8, 2016),
is brought on behalf of similarly situated drivers of the
Defendants for violations of state wage and hour laws.

Quantum Transportation, Inc. is a domestic limited liability
company with a usual place of business in Watertown,
Massachusetts.  The Individual Defendants are managers of Quantum
Transportation.  The Company provides clients with transportation
to medical appointments.  The Company arranges to pick up clients
at their homes at specific times.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Charlotte Drew, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com
                  nfo@mass-legal.com
                  cdrew@mass-legal.com


RADIANCY INC: "Cantley" Suit Moved From E.D. California to D.D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL CANTLEY, individually and behalf of all other similarly
situated v. RADIANCY, INC., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01649, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (Washington, DC).  The District of Columbia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-01614-CRC to the proceeding.

On August 6, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer L.
Thurston entered an order lifting stay, and granting the
Defendants' motion for change of venue.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Yale Basser, Esq.
          MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE AND COMPTON, LLP
          17383 Sunset Boulevard, Suite A380
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
          Telephone: (310) 454-5900
          E-mail: abasser@mzclaw.com

Defendants RADIANCY INC. and PHOTOMEDEX, INC., are represented by:

          Joseph E. Wolfson, Esq.
          STEVENS & LEE
          620 Freedom Business Center, Suite 200
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 205-6019
          Facsimile: (610) 988-0808
          E-mail: jwo@stevenslee.com


RAMIREZ & SON: Accused by Solorzano of Not Paying Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
SALVADOR SOLORZANO, Individually and on Behalf of All Persons
Similarly Situated v. RAMIREZ & SON CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Case No.
4:16-cv-02330 (S.D. Tex., August 4, 2016), accuses the Company of
not paying the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
compensation for hours worked over 40 per work-week, but instead
paid the employees as the same rate for all hours worked.

Ramirez & Son Construction, LLC is a Texas Limited Liability
Company.  Ramirez & Son is a construction company that provides
construction services, among others, throughout this judicial
district.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy D. Saenz, Esq.
          Jason Wagner, Esq.
          WAGNER SAENZ DORITY, L.L.P.
          1010 Lamar Street, Suite 425
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 554-8450
          Facsimile: (713) 554-8451
          E-mail: jsaenz@wsdllp.com
                  jwagner@wsdllp.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: DA Recommends New Bailout System Approach
------------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Pershan, writing for sfist.com, reports that to reform a
bail system that critics say disproportionately punishes poor
people, District Attorney George Gascon is touting a new approach:
An algorithm that recommends how to set bail by factoring in a
person's pending charges, age, rap sheet, and record of appearing
in court.  "When we talk about releasing people based on money, we
are really ignoring the risk that that person presents or does not
present to public safety," he told CBS5 last month.

A federal class-action lawsuit alleged last year that San
Francisco's bail system, sometimes disparagingly referred to as
"Money Bail," was unconstitutional.  Officials tend to agree with
a negative assessment of the status quo. "Money bail doesn't
necessarily deal with risk," Mr. Gascon told KQED in light of the
lawsuit.  "You can have people that are very risky but are
financially capable of posting bail, and they're going to get
released.  And you've got people on the other end that may not be
a risk, but they may not have the monetary ability to post bail,
and they remain in custody for days, weeks and sometimes longer."
For her part, current Sheriff Vicki Hennessy, then Deputy Sheriff,
told KQED that "the current system is inherently unfair."

Now the Chronicle is highlighting Mr. Gascon's approach as it goes
into effect. The algorithm was developed by the Laura and John
Arnold Foundation of Texas, and "the idea is to provide judges
with objective, data-driven, consistent information that can
inform the decisions they make," Arnold Foundation vice president
of criminal justice Matt Alsdorf tells the Chronicle. "What I've
seen in other jurisdictions and what I hope to see in San
Francisco is that over time . . . people will start to see the
validity of the tool and start to buy in more and more."

Sheriff Hennessy says an estimated 80 to 85 percent of inmates in
city jails are awaiting trial, many because they are unable to pay
bail.  While that itself may seem punitive, the effects of an
oftentimes arbitrary bail system can extend further.  "If we want
to take on mass incarceration this is where we should start,"
Santa Clara University law professor David Bell told CBS5.  "Even
a short time in jail increases the risk of criminal activity pre-
trial.  Longer pre-trial stints are associated with loss of
employment and housing."


SCALE CONSTRUCTION: Mendez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE EVELIO MENDEZ and JOSE ARMANDO MENDEZ, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. ANTHONY CORTINA and
SCALE CONSTRUCTION CORP., Case No. 2:16-cv-04372 (E.D.N.Y., August
4, 2016), alleges that the Plaintiffs are entitled to receive from
the Defendants, under the Fair Labor Standards Act: (i) unpaid
wages for overtime work performed, (i) liquidated damages, (iii)
attorneys' fees, (iv) interest, and (v) all costs and
disbursements associated with the action.

Scale is a New York Corporation whose principal place of business
is located in Deer Park, New York.  Anthony Cortina is the Chief
Executive Officer or a corporate officer of Scale.  The Defendants
employed the Plaintiffs as construction workers/masons.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
          MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
          91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
          Hempstead, NY 11550
          Telephone: (516) 280-4600
          Facsimile: (516) 280-4530
          E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com


SKULLCANDY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on Aug. 1 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Utah, case no. 2:16-cv-00810, on behalf of
shareholders of Skullcandy, Inc. ("Skullcandy" or the "Company")
who held Skullcandy securities  and have been harmed by
Skullcandy's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged
violations of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and of the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14d-
9 in connection with the sale of the Company to Incipio, LLC
("Incipio").

On June 23, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which Incipio will acquire
all of the outstanding shares of Skullcandy through an all-cash
tender offer followed by a second-step merger (the "Proposed
Transaction").

To obtain information concerning this action or view a copy of the
complaint, please click here: www.faruqilaw.com/SKULnotice

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was
unanimously approved by the Board, Skullcandy shareholders will
receive $5.75 in cash per share for each share of Skullcandy they
own.  The complaint claims that this offer is inadequate in light
of the Company's recent financial performance and strong growth
prospects and that it represents a 29.2% discount to the Company's
52-week high close price.

The complaint alleges that the Recommendation Statement on
Schedule 14D-9 (the "14D-9") filed with the SEC on July 6, 2016
provides materially incomplete and misleading information about
the Company and the Proposed Transaction regarding: (i) the
process leading to the Proposed Transaction, including certain
conflicts of interest and bids from other interested parties (ii)
the financial analyses conducted by Peter J. Solomon Securities
Company, LLC ("PJSC"), financial advisor to Skullcandy, and (iii)
the projections used by PJSC in those analyses.  The 14D-9 fails
to provide Skullcandy's shareholders with material information
concerning the financial and procedural fairness of the Proposed
Transaction.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and
Pennsylvania.  Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is working together in this
investigation with Juan E. Monteverde from Monteverde & Associates
PC.

To serve as lead plaintiff, inform the Court no later than 60 days
from August 1, 2016.  Any member of the putative class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.  To discuss this action, or have any questions concerning
this notice or rights or interests, please contact:

Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James Banko, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jbanko@faruqilaw.com


STATE STREET: ATRS to Receive Percentage of $300MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System will receive a percentage of a
$300 million class-action settlement it reached with its custodial
bank in connection with overcharging fees.

ATRS is waiting on a U.S. District Court judge in Massachusetts to
approve a formula to distribute the settlement money to class
members, George Hopkins, executive director of ATRS, told Arkansas
Business on Aug. 1.  Mr. Hopkins said it was unclear how many
class members there might be.

ATRS was the lead plaintiff in the case against State Street Corp.
of Boston that was filed in 2011 in U.S. District Court in
Massachusetts.

ATRS alleged that State Street and some of its subsidiaries misled
members of the class in connection with certain foreign currency
exchange trades.

"We thought the fees were outside the market that we should have
been charged for repatriation of dividends," Hopkins said.

He said it was difficult to determine how much ATRS was
overcharged.  "It was not some massive amount, but it was an
amount we feel like a custodial bank should not charge."

U.S. District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf has to approve the
distribution formula, which could take two to three months.

Mr. Hopkins said ATRS started looking into the fees in 2010 after
hearing news reports that retirement systems in other states
questioned the fees with large custodial banks across the country.

The ATRS board agreed to file a class action lawsuit against State
Street to recover those funds, Mr. Hopkins said.  Labation
Sucharow LLP of New York was the lead attorney in the case.

The lawsuit hasn't ruined ATRS' relationship with State Street.

"We continue to have a good working relationship with State
Street, although we objected to those fees," he said.  "We're glad
that case is settled, and we're putting that behind us and moving
forward."


SUFFOLK BANCORP: "Parshall" Sues Over Sale to People's United
-------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SUFFOLK BANCORP, HOWARD C. BLUVER, JOSEPH A. GAVIOLA,
JAMES E. DANOWSKI, BRIAN K. FINNERAN, EDGAR F. GOODALE, DAVID A.
KANDELL, TERENCE X. MEYER, RAMESH N. SHAH, JOHN D. STARK, JR., and
PEOPLE'S UNITED FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-04367 (E.D.N.Y.,
August 4, 2016), arises from a proposed transaction announced on
June 27, 2016, pursuant to which Suffolk Bancorp will be acquired
by People's United Financial, Inc.

On June 26, 2016, Suffolk's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which
public stockholders of Suffolk will receive 2.225 shares of
People's United common stock for each share of Suffolk common
stock they own, the Plaintiff tells the Court.  On July 22, 2016,
the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendants issued materially incomplete
and misleading disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement
filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the Registration Statement.

Suffolk is a New York corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Riverhead, New York.  The Company is the bank
holding company for Suffolk County National Bank of Riverhead.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

People's United is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683-3516
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: tjm@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -


          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@ridrodskylong.com
                  bdl@rigrodskylong.com
                  gs@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 588-5516
          Facsimile: (484) 450-2582
          E-mail: kryan@rmclasslaw.com
                  rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


TALEN ENERGY: Faces ABT Suit Over Proposed Sale to Riverstone
-------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL ABT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TALEN ENERGY CORPORATION, RALPH ALEXANDER, FREDERICK
M. BERNTHAL, EDWARD J. CASEY, JR., PHILIP G. COX, PAUL A. FARR,
LOUISE K. GOESER, STUART E. GRAHAM, MICHAEL B. HOFFMAN, RIVERSTONE
HOLDINGS LLC, RAVEN POWER HOLDINGS LLC, SAPPHIRE POWER HOLDINGS
LLC AND C/R ENERGY JADE, LLC, RPH PARENT LLC, SPH PARENT LLC, CRJ
PARENT LLC, and RJS MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 12638 (Del. Ch.
Ct., August 8, 2016), is brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Talen, who have been harmed as a result of the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of the Talen
Board of Directors and Riverstone Holdings arising out of the
proposed buyout of Talen by Riverstone Holdings.

On June 3, 2016, the Company announced that it had signed a
definitive agreement by which Riverstone Holdings, through its
wholly-owned subsidiaries, will enter into a transaction to
acquire all of the outstanding shares of Talen. Each share of
Talen common stock will be cancelled and converted into the right
to receive $14.00 per share in cash.  The Proposed Transaction is
valued at approximately $1.8 billion.

Talen is a Delaware corporation and maintains its executive
offices in Allentown, Pennsylvania.  Talen has a portfolio of
natural gas, coal, nuclear, oil, and other renewable generation
assets.  Talen generates and sells electricity, capacity, and
related products from a number of power plants that use a diverse
array of fuel sources.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.

Riverstone Holdings is a private equity firm based in New York
City.  Riverstone Holdings focuses its holdings across five
sectors of the energy industry, and avoids reductions in personnel
at the companies it owns, focusing on providing management teams
with flexibility to perform.

Raven Power Holdings LLC, Sapphire Power Holdings LLC and C/R
Energy Jade, LLC are affiliates of Riverstone Holdings that hold
shares of Talen on behalf of Riverstone.  The Affiliates are
parties to the Support Agreement pledging to vote Riverstone's
shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction.  Merger Sub is a
subsidiary of Riverstone Holdings acting to facilitate the
Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com
                  jjr@rl-legal.com

               - and -

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


TALEN ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Suit in Del. Over Riverstone Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WENDELL R. HUNT and KENNETH J. MELCHIORRE, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TALEN ENERGY
CORPORATION, PAUL A. FARR, STUART E. GRAHAM, RALPH A. ALEXANDER,
FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, EDWARD J. CASEY, JR., PHILIP G. COX, LOUISE
K. GOESER, MICHAEL B. HOFFMAN, RIVERSTONE HOLDINGS LLC, RPH PARENT
LLC, SPH PARENT LLC, CRJ PARENT LLC, and RSJ MERGER SUB INC., Case
No. 12634 (Del. Ch., August 8, 2016),  is a stockholder class
action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of the public stockholders
of Talen Energy Corporation opposing a planned acquisition of
Talen by Riverstone Holdings LLC.

Talen Energy Corporation, through its principal subsidiary, Talen
Energy Supply, LLC, operates as an energy and power generation and
marketing company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Phone: (302) 295-5310

        - and -

     Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
     Tanya Korkhov, Esq.
     HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
     488 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 935-7400


TESLA MOTORS: Robbins Arroyo Investigates SolarCity Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo LLP are
investigating the proposed acquisition of SolarCity Corporation by
Tesla Motors, Inc.  On August 1, 2016, the two companies announced
the signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which
Tesla will acquire SolarCity.  Under the terms of the agreement,
SolarCity shareholders will receive 0.11 shares of Tesla common
stock for each share of SolarCity common stock, with an equivalent
value of $25.83 based on Tesla's last closing price on July 29,
2016.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/solarcity-
corporation

Robbins Arroyo LLP's investigation focuses on whether the board of
directors at SolarCity is undertaking a fair process to obtain
maximum value and adequately compensate its shareholders.

As an initial matter, the $25.83 merger consideration represents a
premium of only 16.3% based on SolarCity's 30 day average closing
price on June 20, 2016, the last closing price before the proposal
was announced.  This premium is significantly below the average
one month premium of nearly 23.69% for comparable transactions
within the past three years.  Further, there were ten analysts
with a target price above $25.83 as of June 20, 2016, the last
trading day before the proposal was announced, including the
target price of $50.00 set by an analyst at Raymond James on May
10, 2016, the target price of $46.00 set by an analyst at Stifel
on May 10, 2016, and the target price of $38.00 set by an analyst
at Credit Suisse on May 9, 2016.  In the last three years,
SolarCity traded as high as $88.35 on February 26, 2014, and most
recently traded above the merger consideration -- at $27.03 -- on
July 29, 2016.

On May 9, 2016, SolarCity reported strong earnings results for its
first quarter 2016.  SolarCity reported revenue of $123 million
for the three months ended March 31, 2016, an 82% increase from
the same period of the prior year.  SolarCity has also beaten
analyst estimates for revenue for the past four quarters.

In light of these facts, Robbins Arroyo LLP is examining
SolarCity's board of directors' decision to sell the company now
rather than allow shareholders to continue to participate in the
company's continued success and future growth prospects.

SolarCity shareholders have the option to file a class action
lawsuit to ensure the board of directors obtains the best possible
price for shareholders and the disclosure of material information.
SolarCity shareholders interested in information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue at (800) 350-6003, ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a securities litigation and shareholder
rights law firm.  The law firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested.


TITAN DIRECTIONAL: Brown Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TITAN DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-
02395 (S.D. Tex., August 8, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
overtime wages and other damages from Titan under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The proposed class of similarly situated employees consists of:

     ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE (A) EMPLOYED BY TITAN DIRECTIONAL
     DRILLING, LLC.; (B) WORKED AS A DIRECTIONAL DRILLER OR MWD
     OPERATOR; AND (C) WAS PAID A BASE SALARY AND DAY RATE WITH
     NO OVERTIME COMPENSATION.

Titan Directional Drilling, LLC, is headquartered in Katy, Texas,
and performs substantial business activities in the Southern
District of Texas, including the Houston Division.  The Company
provides horizontal and directional drilling capabilities through
Directional Drillers and, directional drilling, and field support
to oil and gas companies.  To provide these services, the
Defendant employs Directional Drillers and MWD Operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
          FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, L.L.P.
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  adunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  litkin@fibichlaw.com
                  jbresler@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

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


TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 30 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Tokai" or the
"Company") and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 16-cv-06106, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Tokai securities between June 24, 2015, and July 25, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Tokai securities during the
Class Period, you have until September 30, 2016, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Tokai is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and
commercializing innovative therapies for prostate cancer and other
hormonally-driven diseases.  The Company's lead drug candidate is
galeterone, an oral small molecule that was, at all relevant
times, in various clinical trials for the treatment of patients
with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) there were significant
structural problems with the trial design for Tokai's pivotal
Phase 3 galeterone study, ARMOR3-SV; (ii) consequently, ARMOR3-SV
was unlikely to succeed in meeting its primary endpoint; (iii) as
a result, commercialization of galeterone was less likely and/or
imminent than Tokai had led investors to believe; and (iv) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements, as
well as Defendants' statements about Tokai's business, operations,
and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

On November 2, 2015, Richard Pearson published an article on the
investment website Seeking Alpha, entitled "What's Wrong With
Tokai Pharmaceuticals?" (the "Pearson Report").  The Pearson
Report described structural problems with the design of the
Company's ARMOR3-SV trial.

On this news, Tokai's share price fell $0.07, or 0.63%, to close
at $10.98 on November 2, 2015.

On July 26, 2016, Tokai announced plans "to discontinue the
ARMOR3-SV clinical trial, our pivotal Phase 3 study" of
galeterone.

On this news, Tokai's share price plummeted by $4.10, or nearly
79%, to close at $1.10 on July 26, 2016.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.


TIVO INC: Faces "Graham" Shareholder Suit Over Merger with Rovi
---------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA GRAHAM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. TIVO, INC., PETER AQUINO, JEFFREY T. HINSON, DANIEL
MOLONEY, THOMAS S. ROGERS, and WINIFRED MARKUS WEBB, Case 5:16-cv-
04367 (N.D. Cal., August 3, 2016), alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act, in connection with the proposed merger
between TiVo and Rovi Corporation.

Tivo, Inc. provides software and cloud-based services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam C. Mccall, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINKSY LLP
     445 South Figueroa Street
     31st Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 985-7290
     Fax: (866) 367-6510
     E-mail: amccall@zlk.com

        - and -

     Donald E. Enright, Esq.
     Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINKSY LLP
     1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 524-4290
     Fax: (202) 337-1567
     E-mail: denright@zlk.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Volkswagen has submitted a motion to dismiss
a multi-district litigation case filed with the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
Volkswagen wants to dismiss the Consolidated Securities Class
Action Complaint, filed by the Arkansas State Highway Employees'
Retirement System.

The case fails to prove that former chief executive
Martin Winterkorn and current VW brand chief Herbert Diess were
directly involved in the preparation of "allegedly misleading
statements", VW said.

Volkswagen has been accused of deception for failing to inform
investors in a timely manner about cheating emissions tests in the
United States by using software.


WALTCO METAL: Faces "Siddique" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), v. WALTCO METAL INCORPORATED, WALTCO METAL
RECYCLING INC., DIPAK MALLIK, DANILO CACACE, Case No: 1:16-cv-
23314-RNS (S.D. Fla., August 3, 2016), alleges violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Waltco Metal Recycling Inc. is a scrap metal recycling company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Malkoff Challenges Proposed $10BB Sale to Danone
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANICE L. MALKOFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. GREGG L. ENGLES, MICHELLE GOOLSBY, STEPHEN
L. GREEN, JOSEPH S. HARDIN, JR., ANTHONY J. MAGRO, W. ANTHONY
VERNON, DOREEN A. WRIGHT, and THE WHITEWAVE FOODS COMPANY, Case
No. 1:16-cv-02005 (D. Colo., August 8, 2016), is a stockholder
class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of holders of the
common stock of WhiteWave against the Company and its board of
directors for their alleged violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed acquisition of
WhiteWave by the French company Danone S.A. through its newly
formed Delaware company July Merger Sub, Inc., through a merger
transaction.

On July 6, 2016, WhiteWave and Danone jointly announced that they
had reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger, whereby
WhiteWave will merge with and into Merger Sub, with WhiteWave
surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Danone.  The Merger was
unanimously approved and adopted by the Board of Directors of
WhiteWave.  Pursuant to the Merger, each issued and outstanding
share of WhiteWave common stock will be cancelled and
automatically converted into the right to receive $56.25 in cash.
The total value of the Proposed Transaction is $10.1 billion.

The WhiteWave Foods Company is a Delaware corporation with its
principal executive offices located in Denver Colorado.  The
Company manufactures, markets and sells branded plant-based foods
and beverages, coffee creamers and beverages, premium dairy
products and organic produce.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
          THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
          600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-3003
          Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
          E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
          THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
          Post-Montgomery Ctr.
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (303) 861-3003
          Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
          E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Cellular Phone: (305) 205-8284
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces "Berge" Suit Over Acquisition by Danone
--------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE ANN VANDEN BERGE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. GREGG L. ENGLES, MICHELLE GOOLSBY, STEPHEN
L. GREEN, JOSEPH S. HARDIN, JR., ANTHONY J. MAGRO, W. ANTHONY
VERNON, DOREEN A. WRIGHT, and THE WHITEWAVE FOODS COMPANY, Case
No: 1:16-cv-02010 (D. Colo., August 8, 2016), is a stockholder
class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of holders of the
common stock of WhiteWave Foods Company in connection with the
proposed acquisition of WhiteWave by the French company Danone
S.A.

WhiteWave Foods Company manufactures markets and sells branded
plant-based foods and beverages, coffee creamers and beverages,
premium dairy products and organic produce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
     THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
     600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South
     Denver, CO 80202
     Phone: (303) 861-3003
     Fax: (303) 536-7849
     E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
     THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
     Post-Montgomery Ctr.
     One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (303) 861-3003
     Fax: (303) 536-7849
     E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com

        - and -

     James M. Wilson Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: (212) 971-1341
     Cell (305) 205-8284 or (646) 522-4840
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


WISCONSIN: Conservative Group Files Class Action v. Investigators
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew DeFour, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that
a conservative group has filed a class-action lawsuit against the
investigators and former state officials connected to a halted
criminal investigation into Gov. Scott Walker's 2012 recall
campaign.

In the lawsuit, the John K. MacIver Institute alleges the
investigators violated a 1986 federal law that protects electronic
communications from illegal searches and seizures.

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, including punitive
damages and lawyer's fees, names special prosecutor Francis
Schmitz, Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, former
Government Accountability Board director Kevin Kennedy and members
of their staffs.

It is the latest litigation related to two so-called John Doe
investigations dating back to Gov. Walker's time as Milwaukee
County executive.

The first John Doe resulted in the conviction of six Walker aides
and associates for crimes including using public resources for
campaigning purposes.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court halted the
so-called John Doe II, which was based on evidence collected in
John Doe I, after those under investigation challenged the legal
basis for the investigation in court.  Mr. Chisholm has appealed
the state court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This lawsuit does not challenge the basis or even the scope of
John Doe I or John Doe II," the lawsuit states.  "Instead, it
challenges the secretive and unlawful manner in which the
defendants conducted it.  Defendants wanted to amass as much
politically sensitive material as possible, for as long as
possible, before any person could bring defendants' theory or
conduct before a proper court."

Mr. MacIver alleges the defendants violated the 1986 Stored
Communications Act by not notifying the organization that it was
seeking all emails in the maciverinstitute.com domain from Google
for Brian Fraley, one of its fellows.  It also alleges that the
John Doe judge -- which under Wisconsin law is similar to a grand
jury with the ability to compel testimony, subpoena evidence and
conduct investigations in secret -- was not authorized to subpoena
internet service providers under the federal law.

Citing previously released documents from the secretive John Doe,
the lawsuit said the investigators issued 159 notices to
individuals and organizations across the country and that seizures
of email accounts alone returned more than five million emails.
It does not specify how many individuals would be covered by the
class action.

Mr. Schmitz declined to comment on the lawsuit.  Mr. Chisholm and
a spokesman for the GAB did not respond to a request for comment.


WORTHINGTON PJ: O'Connor Files Suit on Behalf of Delivery Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD O'CONNOR, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. WORTHINGTON PJ, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No.
2:16-cv-00608-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., August 4, 2016), is brought as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid minimum wages owed to the plaintiff and other similarly
situated delivery drivers.

Worthington PJ, Inc., is a Florida corporation with a principal
place of business located in Port Charlotte, Florida.  Worthington
operates three Papa John's pizza franchises in Florida.
Worthington employs delivery drivers, like the Plaintiff, who use
their own vehicles to deliver pizza and other food items to
customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
          E-mail: npioch@sommerspc.com
                  cash@sommerspc.com


YAZOO COUNTY, MS: Faces "Ceasar" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ETTA CEASAR, YOURLUNDA STIFF, ANTONIO CARTER, SANDRA BANKS,
SEDERICK CLARK, TERRENSKY MOORE, WILLIAM RICHARDSON, TRINI LEWIS,
DEBORAH WATERS, WILLIS HARALSON, JAMES BUFORD AND SHIRLEY PAIGE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED V.
YAZOO COUNTY REGIONAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; YAZOO COUNTY,
MISSISSIPPI; YAZOO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; YAZOO COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; COBIE COLLINS, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
AND HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE YAZOO COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; AND JACK SHERIFF IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
AND HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE SHERIFF OF YAZOO COUNTY,
MISSISSIPPI Case 3:16-cv-00609-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss., August 3,
2016), seeks to recover damages for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The plaintiff is represented by:

     Louis H. Watson Jr, Esq.
     Nick Norris, Esq.
     WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC
     18880 Lakeland Drive, Suite G.
     Jackson, MS 39216-4972
     Phone: 601-968-0000
     Fax: 601-968-0010
     E-mail: louis@watsonnorris.com


ZISHAN INC: Faces "Castillo" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
FREDDY CASTILLO, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. ZISHAN INC. d/b/a BLUE N1NE BURGER ASMAT ULLAH TOOR,
and SAMAIRA ASMAT, Case 1:16-cv-06166 (S.D.N.Y., August 3, 2016),
seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants employed Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt grill cook,
food preparer/kitchen worker, and food delivery worker for
Defendants' restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Cilenti, Esq.
     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     708 Third Avenue-6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 209- 933
     Fax: (212) 209-7102
     E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


* Increase in M&A Class Actions May Raise D&O Rates, Expert Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that an
apparently dramatic increase in the number of lawsuits related to
mergers and acquisitions, as described in a recent report, could
ultimately lead directors and officers liability insurers to
consider raising rates, says an expert.

However, the data presented in the Cornerstone Research report,
which tracks only federal court filings, may represent merely a
shifting of litigation from state to U.S. courts, said
Kevin LaCroix, executive vice president of RT ProExec, a division
of R-T Specialty L.L.C., in Beachwood, Ohio.

Furthermore, even if claims increase, the amount of capital in the
market remains a bigger factor in determining rates,
Mr. LaCroix said.

Driven in large part by an increase in suits related to mergers
and acquisitions, the number of federal securities class action
lawsuits during the first half of this year rose 16.7%, to 119,
from the same period last year, according to the report issued by
Boston-based Cornerstone Research and the Palo Alto, California-
based Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.

Of those, 24 were related to mergers and acquisitions in this
year's first half, the most since 2010, according to the report.

That compares with eight M&A-related filings for the first half of
2015.  An annualized number of filings of 238 for 2016 would be
27% more than the 1997-2015 historical average of 188 filings a
year, according to the report, "Securities Class Action Filings,
2016 Midyear Assessment."

"If filings continue at the same pace for the remainder of 2106,
this year would be the first since 2008 to have distinctly above-
average filings activity and would have the second-highest number
of filings in the last 20 years -- trailing only 242 in 1986,"
according to the report.

Insurers are concerned whenever there is elevated frequency
"because pricing and underwriting guidelines and so on are built
around generalizations" about the likely rate of frequency, said
Mr. LaCroix.

"If they haven't taken into account this increased frequency in
pricing of risk, it could mean adverse claims results for
insurers, particularly those involved in the primary space," he
said.

However, as the Cornerstone study suggests, the increased number
of M&A claims may reflect only a shift from state to federal
courts as a result of the January 2016 ruling by the Delaware
Court of Chancery in In re Trulia Inc., rather than a real
increase in total litigation, Mr. LaCroix said.

In the Trulia decision, the court ruled against "disclosure-only"
settlements in M&A deals.  A disclosure-only lawsuit is litigation
filed by plaintiff attorneys following M&A deals that result in
their being awarded legal fees when all they did was force
defendants to provide largely immaterial disclosures about the
deal without conveying any monetary benefit to shareholders.

Mr. LaCroix said that when it was issued, it was believed the
Trulia rulings would reduce the number of lawsuits.  But what
seems to be happening instead is these lawsuits are being filed in
federal courts as class action litigation alleging violation of
federal securities law.

However, it may be too early to reach a conclusion on this, and
further data may be needed to determine whether M&A litigation has
actually increased, Mr. LaCroix said.

"We are talking about just six months of data," he said.  "There's
no reason for anybody to hit the panic button until we have a
better sense of whether this is a short-term" or long-term
phenomenon.

Furthermore, the major factor in determining D&O pricing is the
balance between supply and demand, with the abundant supply of
capital now driving pricing, he said.

Whether an actual increase in M&A-related litigation "is
significant enough to counterbalance the supply remains to be
seen," said Mr. LaCroix.


* Prof. Morabito Report Reveals Spike in Australian Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Damian Grave, Esq., of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, in an article
for Lexology, reports that as the class action mechanism in
Australia approaches its 25th anniversary, a recent study presents
some interesting findings about the Australian class actions
environment.

On July 29, 2016 Professor Vince Morabito from the Monash Business
School released An Empirical Study of Australia's Class Action
Regimes Fourth Report: Facts and Figures on Twenty-Four Years of
Class Actions in Australia.

The Report, the fourth in the series, finds that:

In the last six years 49.5% of class actions were funded by
commercial litigation funders, an increase from 23.4% in the six
years prior;

On average, the number of class actions being filed in Australia
has increased;

The predominance of product liability cases in the early days of
the class action regime has been replaced by the prevalence of
investor and securities class actions.  Over the last 12 years
52.4% of all class actions commenced in the Federal Court comprise
claims by investors or shareholders; and
The time taken to settle a class action has increased.
Professor Morabito's report provides further evidence that class
actions and litigation funders are a well-established part of
Australia's litigation landscape.

The Report

The Regimes & number of filings

The first class action regime in Australia, Part IVA of the
Federal Court Act was introduced by the Commonwealth Parliament
with effect from March 5, 1992.  This was followed by Pt 4A of the
Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) with effect from January 1, 2000 and
by Pt 10 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) with effect from 4
March 2011.

Professor Morabito's report shows that in the first 24 years of
the regimes, 19.4 class actions were filed on average every 12
months.  In the last six years this figure increased to an average
of 29.1 class actions being filed every 12 months.

The Report's findings suggest that the rise in the number of class
actions being filed may be due to competing class actions being
commenced in relation to the same or similar subject matter.

Commercial litigation funders

The increasing role and influence of commercial litigation
funders, observed by practitioners and corporate defendants over
many years is also borne out in Professor Morabito's research.

In the first six years of the class actions regime in Australia
not one proceeding was supported by a litigation funder.  In the
second six years, only 1.6% of class actions involved commercial
litigation funders.  This environment has now shifted with 49.5%
of class actions commenced in the last six years in the Federal
Court being funded by commercial litigation funders.

Class actions involving litigation funders also had a higher
settlement rate (92%) compared to unfunded actions at 48.9%.9

As we continue to observe, securities and investor actions
continue to be the preferred type of class action for litigation
funders, with 76% of funded Federal Court proceedings filed during
the review period of the Report being brought on behalf of
investors or shareholders.  The rise in funding activity may in
part explain the shift from the predominance of product liability
cases in the early days of the Federal Court regime to the modern
day prevalence of investor and securities class actions.

Settlements

The Report identifies that on average, class actions that
concluded in a settlement are taking a longer time to get there.
The Report shows that in the first 12 years of the regime, the
average time taken to reach a settlement was 795 days.  In the
second 12 years it took on average, 1107 days for the parties to
reach a settlement.

Conclusion

Professor Morabito's report provides further evidence that class
actions and commercial litigation funders have become a well-
established part of Australia's litigation landscape.





                            *********

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. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *