CAR_Public/170511.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Thursday, May 11, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 94



                            Headlines

234 EAST: "Luna" Raises FLSA, NYLL Claims Over Non-Tipped Duties
500.COM LIMITED: Settlement in Stockholder Action Okayed
AA AFFORDABLE: "Kennedy" Suit Moved to Maryland Federal Court
ADELPHIA SUPPLY: Class Certification Denied in "Bolling" Suit
AIR EV: "Ferrell" Suit Removed to to E.D. Ark.

AKAL SECURITY: Faces Class Action Over Lunch Break Policy
AKORN INC: Class Certification Sought in Securities Litigation
ALARM.COM INC: Court Certified 3 Classes in Abante Rooter Suit
ALCOBRA LTD: Class Suit over MDX Drug Trial Underway
ALLIANZ ASSET: Class Certification Bid Taken Under Submission

AMERICAN CITY: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
APPLE HOSPITALITY: "Moses" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
APPLEBEE'S SERVICES: August 1 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
ARS NATIONAL: Saroza Sues over Debt Collection Practices
BANCO BRADESCO: "Operation Zealots" Class Action Suit Underway

BANNER BANK: "Bolding" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BUFFALO WILD WINGS: FLSA and State Law Violation Claims Ongoing
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Class Action May Spur Collapse of Teams
CANINE FRIENDLY: "Zapata" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
CEMEX SAB: Evidentiary Hearing in Israeli Lawsuit Still Ongoing

CEMPRA INC: Still Defends North Carolina Securities Class Suits
CHINA FINANCE: Final Distribution Motion to be Filed by June 19
CHRYSLER: Seeks Subpoena Against Lawyer in UConnect Class Action
COMBE INC: Finkelstein & Krinsk's Hair Dye Suit Underway
CORESITE REALTY: Court Sets June 5 to Hear Employment Class Pact

COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Paci" Suit Alleges FACTA Violations
CUBESMART: Awaits Court Action on Amended Class Action Complaint
DAILY NEWS: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Defends Suit on Behalf of RMBS Trusts
DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Denies Royal Park's Class Certification Bid

DIRECT AIRLINE: FairLaw Firm Files Wage Class Action
DONOSTIA LLC: Faces "Hart" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
DRYSHIPS INC: Law Firms Investigate Potential Securities Claims
DUN & BRADSTREET: Pentz Seeks Review of Ruling in "Thomas" Suit
EL SUSHI LOCO: "Rivera" Seeks Payment of Unpaid Regular, OT Wages

EQT PRODUCTION: Appeals Ruling in "Adkins" Suit to 4th Cir.
EQT PRODUCTION: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of "Adair" Suit Ruling
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Still Defends 3 MERS-Related Litigations
EXPEDIA INC: Still Defends in Putative Class Action Litigations
FCC ENVIRONMENTAL: "Butler" Sues for Unpaid Overtime Wages

FORD MOTOR: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action in Illinois
FYRE MEDIA: Faces Second Class Action Over Fyre Festival
G4S SECURE: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, "Arteaga" Suit Says
GAZIT-GLOBE: Court Sets Document Disclosure Hearing for May 25
GC SERVICES: Faces "Grichetchkina" Suit in E.D. New York

GENERAL MOTORS: Still Faces Class Action Suits over 2014 Recalls
GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal on Shareholder Class Suit Accord Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: Still Defends in Airbag Inflators Class Actions
GERBER FOOD: 9th Cir. Revives Baby Food False Advertising Suit
GOLD'S GYM: Fails to Pay Fitness Instructors, "Sands" Suit Says

GOPRO INC: Still Defends Calif. Shareholder Class Suits
GRUPO AVAL: Still Defends in Constitutional Actions in Colombia
HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: "Gumbs" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
HERTZ GROUP: "Campos" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
HEWLETT PACKARD: Court Tosses Discount Drugs' Suit

HI-SHEAR CORP: "Torres" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
IMPERIAL PARKING: "Felix" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law
INFIGEN'S CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Currandooley Fire
INSULET CORP: Securities Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
INTER-CON SECURITY: Faces "Powers" Wage-and-Hour Suit

INVENTURE FOODS: "Robinson" Sues Over Share Price Drop
K12 INC: Consolidated Securities Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
KBR INC: Securities Case Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
KELLY SERVICES: Settles FCRA Background Check Case for $6.7MM
KENNEDY RIG: "Andrio" Suit Asserts FLSA Breach

KIMS NAILS: Faces "Lazo" Suit in Southern District of New York
LG DISPLAY: Settled with Plaintiffs in LCD Panel Suit at Apr. 27
LG DISPLAY: Class Action Pact with 3 Canadian Provinces Reached
LG DISPLAY: Hatzlacha Class Action Case in Israel Still Ongoing
LG DISPLAY: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Class Action Underway

LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Has Deal to Resolve Alabama Cases vs. Units
LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Cardiology Patient Claims in W.Va. Pending
LIONBRIDGE TECH: Laborers' Fund Disputes Merger Deal
LYFT INC: Gaussoin Appeals Order in "Cotter" Suit to 9th Cir.
MACY'S CREDIT: "Clark" Sues Over TCPA Violations in Fla.

MAIBEC INC: Stern Appeals From D.N.J. Decision to Third Circuit
MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces "Hartley" Suit Over TCPA Violations in Cal.
MERIDIAN CARE: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
METALLINE FIRE: Faces "Castro" Suit in S.D. New York
MIDLAND FUNDING: Eric Hilton Sues Over Debt Collection Suit

MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Mellon" Suit in E.D. New York
MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Caruso" Suit in E.D. New York
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Suit Concluded at March 31
NATIONAL CREDIT: Valenzuela Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Charleston" Suit in E.D. New York

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Levinson" Suit in E.D. New York
NEIMAN MARCUS: 9th Cir. Revives "Last Call" Stores Price Tag Suit
NEW YORK: Court Denied Class Certification in "Brooks" Suit
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Pisk" Suit in E.D. New York
NYU HOSPITALS: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, "Valentine" Suit Says

ONE UP: "Salanitri" Suit Seeks Withheld Wages Under Labor Law
PAPA JOHN'S: "Hatmaker" Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements
PARK WEST EXECUTIVE: Seeks Review of Decision in "Faroque" Suit
PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALTIES: Quinonez Seeks to Certify Class
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Faces "Eger" Suit in S.D. Indiana

PLANNERNET INC: Faces "Champagne" Suit Over Unpaid Wages, OT Pay
PNM RESOURCES: Unit Still Faces Navajo Nation Allottee Matters
QUALCOMM INC: Carr Sues for Monopoly of Modem Chipset Market
QUEMETCO INC: "Ramirez" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court
RENAISSANCE HOME: Faces "Barnhill" Sues Over Unpaid OT Pay

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Raabe Sues Over Defective Washing Machines
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Law Firm Investigates Potential Suit
SECURE COLLATERAL: Snyder Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
SENTRY CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
SHREE LAXMI: Faces "Pacheco" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations

SONOMA MISSION: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action
TOKAI PHARMA: Defending Class Suits over Otic Pharma Deal
TOP LINE: Faces "Frisbie" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations
TRICKEY'S SERVICE: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Fees

TWITTER INC: Faces Securities Class Actions in California
U.S. SECURITY: "Cogburn" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
U.S. XPRESS: Ayala Suit to Certify Class of Truck Drivers
UNIVERSAL TAX: D&B Seeks to Certify Tax Software Purchasers Class
US COMPLIANCE: Faces "Cross" Suit Over TCPA Violation in Or.

VOLARIS: Right to Appeal Dismissal of IPO-Related Suit Expires
WELLS FARGO: Still Defends RMBS Trust Complaints in New York
WELLS FARGO: Asks Court to Deny Class Certification in "Nguyen"
WHITING PETROLEUM: "Schindler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Fails to Pay Regular & OT Wages, Ulbrich Says

YIN WALL: Baumann Farms Seeks to Certify Ginseng Growers Class

* Defendants Losing War in Securities Class Actions




                            *********


234 EAST: "Luna" Raises FLSA, NYLL Claims Over Non-Tipped Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE JACINTO MENDEZ LUNA and WILLAN ORLANDO ORELLANA MENDOZA
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, against 234 EAST 4TH STREET RESTAURANT, CORP. (d/b/a
SECARA RESTAURANT), ADOLFO TORO, and CHRISTIAN CAICEDO Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03164 (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2017), alleges that
Plaintiffs were employed as a cook, busboy, bartender, host, book
keeper, and waiter but were required to spend a considerable part
of their work day performing non-tipped duties, unrelated to tip
work.  Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for
violations of the N.Y. Labor
Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New
York Commissioner of Labor.

Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a Cuban restaurant.
Plaintiffs were employed as a cook, busboy, bartender, host, book
keeper, and waiter.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Tel: (212) 317 1200
     Fax: (212) 317 1620


500.COM LIMITED: Settlement in Stockholder Action Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has
dismissed with prejudice a purported stockholder class action
lawsuit against 500.com Limited on March 6, 2017, according to the
Company's Form 20-F filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Court
also issued a final judgment approving the settlement entered into
by the parties in the action.

On February 27, 2015, the lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the
Company's American depositary shares (ADSs) during the period
between November 22, 2013 and February 25, 2015, captioned Fragala
v. 500.com Limited, et al., Case No.  15-CV-1463-MMM (E), was
filed in the Court against the Company, certain of its executive
officers, and the underwriters for its initial public offering.

On July 7, 2015, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved
the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel to represent the
purported class in the litigation.

On September 15, 2015, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the
Company's ADSs during the period between November 22, 2013 and
March 2, 2015.  The amended complaint alleges that the Company's
prospectus, registration statement, and other filings with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from October 22, 2013 to
March 2, 2015 contained materially false and misleading
information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

On January 22, 2016, lead plaintiff and the underwriter defendants
stipulated to the dismissal of the underwriter defendants with
prejudice.

On March 15, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss filed by
the company and those of its executive officers named in the suit,
stating that the issues raised in the motion are more
appropriately resolved on a motion for summary judgment.

On September 12, 2016, the parties entered into a written
agreement to settle the matter for US$2.5 million, inclusive of
fees and costs, subject to Court approval.  The Company paid
US$1.5 million for the settlement, and the remaining US$1.0
million was covered by the insurance company.

On November 1, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement and preliminarily certified a class for settlement
purposes.

On March 6, 2017, the Court held the final fairness hearing and
issued a final judgment approving the settlement, certifying the
settlement class, and dismissing the action with prejudice.

500.com Limited provides online sports lottery services in the
People's Republic of China.  It operates as an aggregator and
processor of lottery purchase orders from its registered user
accounts.  It was formerly known as 500wan.com Limited and changed
its name to 500.com Limited in October 2013.  The Company was
founded in 2001 and is based in Shenzhen, the People's Republic of
China.


AA AFFORDABLE: "Kennedy" Suit Moved to Maryland Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michelle Kennedy and Antwan Baker,
Individually, and on behalf of the Estate of Ebonee Baker; T. B.,
a minor by his parent and next fiend, Antwan Baker; T. A., a minor
by her next friend, Antwan Baker; Helen Morgan; and Darryl Spence,
the Plaintiffs, v. Domonick Dry, Each Individually and on Behalf
of Others Similarly Situated; AA Affordable Transportation, LLC;
Tracy Dabo; Aliyu Dabo; Concentra Health Services, Inc., doing
business as American Current Care, P.A., trading as Concentra
Urgent Care; American Current, P.A., doing business as Concentra
Health Services, Inc., trading as Concentra Urgent Care; and
Occupational Health Centers of the Southwest, P.A., doing business
as Concentra Medical Centers, trading as Concentra Urgent Care,
the Defendants, Case No. 24-C-17-002426 OT, was removed on May 4,
2017 from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, to the U.S.
District Court for District of Maryland (Baltimore). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-01226-JFM to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J. Frederick Motz.

AA Afordable provides transportation services throughout the
Baltimore, Maryland area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Schochor, Esq.
          SCHOCHOR FEDERICO AND STATON PA
          The Paulton
          1211 Saint Paul St
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 234 1000
          Facsimile: (410) 234 1010
          E-mail: jschochor@sfspa.com

               - and -

          William Hughes Murphy, Jr., Esq.
          MURPHY FALCON AND MURPHY
          One South St 23rd Fl
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 951 8744
          Facsimile: (410) 539 6599
          E-mail: billy.murphy@murphyfalcon.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John T Sly, Esq.
          WARANCH AND BROWN LLC
          1301 York Rd Ste 300
          Lutherville, MD 21093
          Telephone: (410) 821 6014
          E-mail: jsly@waranch-brown.com


ADELPHIA SUPPLY: Class Certification Denied in "Bolling" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Manish S. Shah entered an order in the lawsuit
styled Bolling Prescription Lab, Inc., the Plaintiff, v.
Adelphia Supply USA, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01485 (N.D. Ill.), denying Plaintiff's motion for class
certification without prejudice as premature.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on May 5, 2017,
continued status hearing is set for June 28, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

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


AIR EV: "Ferrell" Suit Removed to to E.D. Ark.
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned JAMES W. FERRELL, Individually and as Class
Representative, Plaintiff, AIR EV AC EMS INC., d/b/a AIR EV AC
LIFETEAM, Defendant, Case No. CV-2017-35-4, filed on March 1,
2017, was removed from the Circuit Court of Drew County, State of
Arkansas, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas on April 28, 2017, and assigned Case No.
5:17-cv-00124-DPM.

Defendant allegedly violated the Arkansas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act by concealing the prices it intended to charge
for air ambulance services provided to Plaintiff and purported
class members.

Defendant operates an air ambulance service business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.C. Gibson, III
     GIBSON & KEITH, PLLC
     119 South Main Street
     Post Office Drawer 447
     Monticello, AR 71657
     Phone: 870/367-2438
     Fax: 870 367 8306
     E-mail: ccgiii@gibsonandkeith.com

The Defendant(s) is represented by:

     Scott Poynter, Esq.
     Nate Steel, Esq.
     Alex T. Gray, Esq.
     Jeremy Hutchinson, Esq.
     STEEL, WRIGHT, GRAY & HUTCHINSON, PLLC
     400 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 2910
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Phone: (501) 251-1587
     E-mail: scott@poynterlawgroup.com
             nate@swghfirm.com
             alex@swghfirm.com
             jeremy@swghfirm.com

        - and -

     Joshua L. Fuchs, Esq.
     Elizabeth G. Myers, Esq.
     JONES DAY
     717 Texas, Suite 3300
     Houston, TX 77002-2712
     Phone: 832-239-3939
     Fax: 832-293-3600
     E-mail: jlfuchs@jonesday.com
             egmyers@jonesday.com


AKAL SECURITY: Faces Class Action Over Lunch Break Policy
---------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that an air
security officer has filed a class-action lawsuit against a
company with operations in Alexandria over allegations of labor
code violations.

Hayward Dean, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint on April 18 in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division against
Akal Security Inc. alleging that the New Mexican subcontractor
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the
defendant has a company policy of docking one hour of pay on
return flights for a lunch break.  The plaintiff alleges he and
other air security officers did not get to take these breaks.  The
plaintiff holds Akal Security Inc. responsible because the
defendant also allegedly did not pay regular wages for the hours
worked that were improperly deducted for the forced lunch break
and failed to pay overtime wages.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages for
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages and all
other relief that the court deems appropriate.  He is represented
by James Sudduth III -- James@SAA.legal -- of Sudduth & Associates
LLC in Lake Charles and Matthew Sarelson of Kaplan Young & Moll
Parr¢n PLLC in Miami.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
Alexandria Division Case number 1:17-cv-00543 [GN]


AKORN INC: Class Certification Sought in Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit RE AKORN, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
1:15-cv-01944 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify
a class of:

   "all persons or entities who purchased or acquired shares of
   Akorn, Inc.'s common stock between May 6, 2014 and April 24,
   2015, and who were damaged thereby".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=b2JmFuJ2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Tel: 312-377-1181
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
                  lcludwig@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          John S. Monical, Esq.
          Peter E. Cooper, Esq.
          Mitchell B. Goldberg, Esq.
          LAWRENCE, KAMIN, SAUNDERS & UHLENHOP, L.L.C.
          300 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 372 1947


ALARM.COM INC: Court Certified 3 Classes in Abante Rooter Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., MARK
HANKINS, AND PHILIP K. CHARVAT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALARM.COM
INCORPORATED AND ALARARM.COM HOLDINGS, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 4:15-cv-06314-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers entered an order:

   1. denying Defendants' motion to strike the expert report of
      Anya Verkhovskaya;

   2. granting Defendants' motion to strike the expert report of
      Jeffery Hansen;

   3. denying Defendants' to strike the declaration of Rachel
      Hoover;

   4. granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify three classes under
      Rule 23(b)(3):

      Cell Phone Class:

      "all persons in the United States, to whom: (a) Alliance or
      its agents, on Defendants' behalf, instituted one or more
      non-emergency telephone calls; (b) promoting Defendants'
      goods or services; (c) to a recipient's cellular telephone
      number; (d) through the use of an automatic telephone
      dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; (e)
      at any time since October 15, 2013; (f) except those
      persons that provided Defendants with their telephone
      number(s) prior to receiving call(s) from Alliance or its
      agents, on Defendants' behalf".

      Residential Class:

      "all persons in the United States to whom: (a) Alliance or
      its agents, on Defendants' behalf, initiated one or more
      non-emergency telephone calls; (b) promoting Defendants'
      goods or services; (c) to a recipient's residential
      telephone line; (d) through the use of an artificial or
      prerecorded voice; (e) at any time since October 15, 2013;
      (f) except those persons that provided Defendants with
      their telephone number(s) prior to receiving call(s) from
      Alliance or its agents, on Defendants' behalf"; and

      National Do-Not-Call Class (DNC Class):

      "all persons in the United States who: (a) received more
      than one call, made by Alliance on Defendants' behalf; (b)
      promoting Defendants' goods or services; (c) in a twelve-
      month period; (d) on their cellular telephone line or
      residential telephone line; (e) whose cellular or
      residential telephone line number(s) appear on the National
      Do-Not-Call Registry; (f) at any time since June 30, 2010;
      (g) except those persons that provided Defendants with
      their telephone number(s) prior to receiving call(s) from
      Alliance or its agents, on Defendants' behalf"; and

   5. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel; and

A case management is scheduled for May 30, 2017, at 1:00 p.m.,
with a joint statement due pursuant to the Local Rules.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W48pyXYU


ALCOBRA LTD: Class Suit over MDX Drug Trial Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Alcobra Ltd. is facing class action complaint for allegedly making
false or misleading statements regarding its MDX drug candidate
clinical trial, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On February 17, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its current officers (one of whom also is a
director) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The case was filed on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased or acquired the Company's
publicly-traded securities between August 13, 2015 and January 17,
2017.

The complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company and
the individual defendants made false or misleading statements
relating to the results of the Company's second Phase III clinical
trial for its MDX drug candidate.

The Company disclosed that at this preliminary stage, it cannot
assess the exposure under such complaint.

Alcobra Ltd., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
development and commercialization of proprietary pharmaceutical
products.  Its product candidates include Abuse-Deterrent
Amphetamine Immediate-Release (ADAIR), a proprietary, abuse-
deterrent oral formulation of immediate-release (short-acting)
dextroamphetamine for the treatment of attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy; and Metadoxine
Extended Release (MDX), a proprietary oral drug for the treatment
of ADHD and other cognitive disorders, including Fragile X
syndrome.  Alcobra Ltd. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered
in Tel Aviv, Israel.


ALLIANZ ASSET: Class Certification Bid Taken Under Submission
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Aleksandr Urakhchin et al. the Plaintiff,
v. Allianz Asset Management of America, L.P., et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-01614-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order taking Plaintiff's
motion for class certification under submission.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UQvp05Ug

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carl Engstrom, Esq.
          Kai Richter, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          1048 Irvine Ave Ste 572
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 295 7209

The Defendants are represented by:

          James Fleckner, Esq.
          Paul Nemser, Esq.
          GOODWIN & BOSTON
          100 Northern Avenue
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 570 1153
          Facsimile: (617) 523 1231
          E-mail: jfleckner@goodwinlaw.com


AMERICAN CITY: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American City
Business Journals, Inc.  The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan
Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. American City Business Journals, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03316 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017).

American City publishes local business news and information for
readers and advertisers in the United States. It publishes daily
newspapers, journals, and magazines; and metropolitan business
newsweeklies for sports fans, sports business readers, and classic
car enthusiasts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


APPLE HOSPITALITY: "Moses" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SUSAN MOSES, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APPLE HOSPITALITY
REIT INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-03131-DLI-SMG
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move Court for an order:

   1. preliminarily certifying a Settlement Class for the
      purposes of settlement;

   2. preliminarily approving terms of the Settlement as set
      forth in the Stipulation of Settlement;

   3. approving the form and method for providing notice of the
      Settlement to the Settlement Class;

   4. preliminarily certifying Plaintiff and Alfred and Frances
      Woods as class representatives;

   5. appointing Interim Class Counsel; and

   6. scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing on, inter alia, final
      approval of the Settlement and class certification.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ALzFn8oy

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Gray, Esq.
          Michael J. Giarrusso, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. GRAY, P.C.
          360 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 838 3221
          Facsimile: (212) 937 3139

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq.
          John C. Wang, Esq.
          SALAS WANG LLC
          73 West Monroe, Suite 219
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 803 4963
          Facsimile: (312) 244 3151

               - and -

          James J. Eccleston, Esq.
          Stephany D. McLaughlin, Esq.
          ECCLESTON LAW, LLC
          55 W. Monroe, Suite 610
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332 0000
          Facsimile: (312) 332 0003


APPLEBEE'S SERVICES: August 1 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Hutton, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that
employees at several Applebee's locations in southern Illinois are
poised to receive a settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging
they were not correctly compensated for their work.

Amy Cook and Devin Muscarella filed the lawsuit against Applebee's
Services Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois, alleging the defendants failed to properly compensate
them for their work.

According to the original lawsuit, Cook and Muscarella alleged
that 26 Applebee's locations in southern Illinois required tipped
employees to wash dishes, prepare food and perform other tasks
that should have bumped them up to minimum wage.  The chain also
allegedly took back their previously earned vacation pay.

According to the initial complaint, Applebee's stiffed the workers
on vacation pay they had accrued, in violation of the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The U.S. District Court last month offered preliminary approval of
a proposed class settlement, scheduled a hearing for approval and
set a proposed class notice.

According to records, the court has ruled that the settlement is
within the range of possible approval and offered preliminary
approval.

"The agreement is the result of arm's-length negotiations between
attorneys familiar with wage and hour class action litigation
generally, and with the legal and factual issues of this case in
particular," the court wrote in its documents.

Analytics Consulting LLC has been appointed as settlement
administrator, according to court records.

Class members are not required to submit a claim form to
participate in the settlement and receive a monetary award.

Applebee's was ordered to provide Analytics Consulting with a
complete list of all class members, including   names, Social
Security numbers, employee identification number and last-known
mailing address and telephone number.

Analytics Consulting will then mail a short-form class notice to
class members within the parameters of the agreement.

Members who object to any term of the settlement must do so in
writing and consistent with the relevant provision of the
agreement.  The written objection must be sent to Analytics
Consultants.

Class members may elect to opt out of the proposed settlement by
written request.

A hearing for final approval is set for 1 p.m. on Aug. 16 in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  At that
time, class members can show cause why the agreement should or
should not be approved.

At the final approval hearing, the court will determine whether
the proposed settlement, and any application for attorneys' fees
or reimbursement of expenses, will be approved.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 3:13-cv-01289-SMY-SCW [GN]


ARS NATIONAL: Saroza Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
NESTOR SAROZA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03160-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., May 4, 2017),
seeks to recover actual and statutory damages for violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

According to the complaint, Defendant's May 5, 2016 letter seeks
to induce consumers to make full payment of amounts sought, or
full payment under a payment plan, by promising consumers the
benefits of updated credit reporting. In fact, consumers are
entitled to receive updated credit reporting even where they make
only interim payments.

Plaintiff suffered injury in fact by being subjected to unfair and
abusive practices of the Defendant. Plaintiff suffered actual harm
by being the target of the Defendant's misleading debt collection
communications. Defendant violated Plaintiff's right not to be the
target of misleading debt collection communications. Defendant
violated Plaintiff's right to a truthful and fair debt collection
process. Defendant used materially false, deceptive, misleading
representations and means in its attempted collection of
Plaintiff's alleged debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507 6300


BANCO BRADESCO: "Operation Zealots" Class Action Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended "Operation Zealots" class action that named Banco
Bradesco S.A. as one of the defendants is in a preliminary stage,
according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In May 2016, Bradesco became aware of the indictment of three
members of its Executive Board of Directors by the Federal Police,
in the scope of the so-called "Operation Zealots".  On July 2016,
the Federal Public Prosecution filed an accusation against all
three members of the Board of Executive Officers and a former
member of its Board of Directors, which was received by the Judge
of the 10th Federal Court of Judicial Section of the Federal
District.

The Management conducted a thorough internal evaluation of the
records and documents related to the indictment and found no
evidence of any illegality committed by its representatives.  The
executives of Bradesco have already submitted their respective
defenses in the criminal proceedings, pointing out the facts and
evidence demonstrating their innocence.  Bradesco is cooperating
with the authorities and appropriate regulatory authorities,
providing the information requested, in Brazil and abroad.

On account of the news published in the media, on the indictment
in the "Operation Zealots", a class action was filed in the
District Court of New York on June 2016.

On September 2016, Bradesco voluntarily attended the proceedings
of the Class Action and agreed with the plaintiff a term for the
submission of the revocation of the suit until December 2016.

On October 2016, the Plaintiff Leader presented the addendum of
the Initial Petition, appointing as defendants Bradesco and three
members of its Board of Executive Officers.  According to the
demand, investors who purchased preferred American Depository
Shares ("ADS") of Bradesco between April 2012 and July 2016 would
have suffered losses provoked by Bradesco due to a supposed
violation regarding the American law of capital markets, according
to communication to the Market on May, June and July 2016.

Considering that the demand is in a preliminary stage, it is not
possible at present to make a risk rating, and there is not yet
evidence to support a risk assessment.

Banco Bradesco S.A. provides banking and financial products and
services to individuals, companies, and corporations and
institutions.  The Company operates in two segments, Banking; and
Insurance, Pension Plans and Capitalization Bond.  Banco Bradesco
S.A. was founded in 1943 and is headquartered in Osasco, Brazil.


BANNER BANK: "Bolding" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Bolding and Michael Manfredi, individually and on behalf of
a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Banner
Bank, a Washington Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00601
(W.D. Wash., April 17, 2017) seeks declaratory judgment, equitable
relief and damages for Defendant's failure to pay non-exempt
Residential Lenders (Loan Officers) overtime wages in accordance
with the law, where commissions earned were not included in the
calculation of the regular rate of pay for determination of proper
overtime wages; and for Defendant's failure to properly record and
pay wages to employees for all hours worked, instituted to secure
the protection of and to redress the deprivation and interference
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed as a mortgage loan officers by the
Defendant.

Defendant Banner Bank is a Washington state chartered commercial
bank and a subsidiary of Banner Corporation, headquartered in
Washington.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Scott C. G. Blankenship, Esq.
   Robin J. Shishido, Esq.
   Jordan A. Taren, Esq.
   The Blankenship Law Firm, P.S.
   1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250
   Seattle, WA 98104
   Tel: (206) 343-2700
   Fax: (206) 343-2704
   Email: sblankenship@blankenshiplawfirm.com
          rshishido@blankenshiplawfirm.com
          jtaren@blankenshiplawfirm.com


BUFFALO WILD WINGS: FLSA and State Law Violation Claims Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. continues to face class action suit under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York state law and in
other states as of September 27, 2016, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 26, 2017.

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

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

The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.  It
believes there is a reasonable possibility of loss related to
these claims; however, given the early stage of the case, the
Company is currently unable to determine the potential range of
exposure, if any.

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


CANADIAN HOCKEY: Class Action May Spur Collapse of Teams
--------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Hockey commentator Don Cherry
believes that if the Canadian Hockey League loses class action
lawsuits brought against it by former players many of its teams
will go out of business.

Mr. Cherry spoke out in his Coach's Corner segment on May 2 during
the first intermission of Game 3 in the Ottawa Senators-New York
Rangers' Eastern Conference semifinal.

"What worries me is that the judge isn't in the hockey world,"
said Mr. Cherry.  "If they ever have this class action suit, if it
ever comes through, it will close at least half (of the major
junior hockey teams).

"There's about nine teams making money right now that I know of.
The rest have to fold."

Mr. Cherry was referring to a class action lawsuit against the
Ontario Hockey League that was granted certification on May 2 by
Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perrell with some conditions.
The court ruled that players with the OHL's three American teams
were exempt from the class action.

Parallel class actions are also pending in the Western Hockey
League and Quebec Major Junior Hockey League.

The three major junior hockey leagues, featuring a combined 60
teams of players between the ages of 16 and 20, fall under the
umbrella of the Canadian Hockey League.  The WHL is the biggest
with 22 teams, the OHL has 20 and the QMJHL 18.

Mr. Cherry was a co-owner, general manager and coach for the
Mississauga IceDogs from 1998 to 2002. The team later became the
Niagara IceDogs.

On May 2, Mr. Cherry mentioned his former ownership in the OHL
before saying how damaging a successful suit would be to amateur
hockey in Canada.

"That means no more scholarships, no place for anyone to go," said
Mr. Cherry.  "This is absolutely ridiculous.

"It's the best players in the world.  They pay for all your
equipment, they give you money, they give you billets, sticks are
$1,000 right now. If this ever goes through it will kill hockey."

The three suits contend that players have been paid less than the
minimum wage required by law in their regions and asks for $180
million in back wages, overtime and vacation pay.

Sam Berg, a former Niagara IceDogs forward, and Daniel Pachis, a
former member of the Oshawa Generals, were recognized as the
representative plaintiffs against the OHL.  Lucas Walter, a former
player in the WHL and the QMJHL, is the representative player in
those suits.

The suits argue the standard agreements players sign pay them as
little as $35 per week for between 40 to 65 hours of work.

The allegations have yet to be proven in court.

The lawsuit against the OHL will proceed under claims of breach of
employment law, but not under breach of contract,
Justice Perell said in his ruling.

The OHL maintains that players are not employees and the benefits
the players receive from the league and teams "far exceed the
employment standards benefits sought in the claim."

During certification hearings last month in Toronto, the OHL said
that some teams would fold and others would have to reduce or
eliminate some player benefits if the plaintiffs won their case.
[GN]



CANINE FRIENDLY: "Zapata" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Zapata, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Canine Friendly Coalition, Inc. d/b/a
Desert Star Home Health and Roberto Herrera, Individually,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00131, (W.D. Tex., April 27, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, litigation costs, costs of court, and pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest under the provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendants provide home health services to individuals in Texas
where Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Licensed
Vocational Nurse whose primary duty was to travel to the homes of
Defendants' customers to provide nursing care.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
      DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
      1800 Guadalupe Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 777-7777
      Fax: (512) 340-4051
      E-Mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com


CEMEX SAB: Evidentiary Hearing in Israeli Lawsuit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evidentiary hearing continues in an Israeli class action
litigation against a subsidiary of CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. and three
other companies, according to CEMEX's Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.  The court has set July 12, 2017 as the date to
hear evidence on behalf of two other companies.

On June 21, 2012, one of CEMEX's subsidiaries in Israel was
notified about a class action suit against it and other three
companies filed by a homeowner who built his house with concrete
supplied by CEMEX in October of 2010.  The class action argues
that the concrete supplied to him did not meet with the Israeli
ready-mix strength standard requirements and that as a result
CEMEX acted unlawfully toward all of its customers who received
concrete that did not comply with such standard requirements.

As per the application, the plaintiff claims that the supply of
the alleged non-conforming concrete has caused financial and non-
financial damages to those customers, including the plaintiff.

CEMEX presumes that the class action would represent the claim of
all the clients who purchased the alleged non-conforming concrete
from its subsidiary in Israel during the past 7 years, the
limitation period according to applicable laws in Israel.

The damages that could be sought amount to approximately 276
million Israeli Shekels (approximately US$75.99 million as of
March 31, 2017, based on an exchange rate of 3.632 Israeli Shekels
to US$1.00).

CEMEX's subsidiary submitted a formal response to the
corresponding court.  The applicant requested the court to join
all claims brought by him.  In a hearing held on December 20,
2015, the preliminary proceeding was completed and the court set
dates for hearing evidence on May 8, 10 and 16, 2016.

Moreover, the court decided to join together all claims against
all four companies, including CEMEX's subsidiary in Israel, in
order to simplify and shorten court proceedings, however, the
court has not formally decided to join together all claims.

On the hearing dates, the applicants in all four claims presented
evidence, including expert testimony.  The evidentiary hearing has
not been completed as of March 31, 2017.

As of March 31, 2017, CEMEX's subsidiary in Israel is not able to
assess the likelihood of the class action application being
approved or, if approved, of an adverse result, such as an award
for damages in the full amount that could be sought, but if
adversely resolved CEMEX does not believe that the final
resolutions would have a material adverse impact on its results of
operations, liquidity or financial condition.

CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V., together with its subsidiaries, produces,
markets, distributes, and sells cement, ready-mix concrete,
aggregates, clinker, and other construction materials.  The
Company also offers various complementary construction products,
including asphalt products; concrete blocks and roof tiles;
architectural products; concrete pipes for storm and sanitary
sewers applications; and other precast products comprising rail
products, concrete floors, box culverts, bridges, drainage basins,
barriers, and parking curbs.  In addition, it provides building
solutions for housing projects, pavement projects, and green
building consultancy services; and information technology
solutions and services.  The Company has operations in Mexico, the
United States, Europe, South America, the Caribbean, Asia, the
Middle East, and Africa.  CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. was founded in
1906 and is headquartered in San Pedro Garza Garcia, Mexico.


CEMPRA INC: Still Defends North Carolina Securities Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cempra, Inc. continues to defend itself in securities class action
lawsuits in North Carolina, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On November 4, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was
commenced in the United States District Court, Middle District of
North Carolina, Durham Division, naming the Company and certain of
the Company's officers as defendants, and alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements made by the defendants between May
1, 2016 and November 1, 2016 (the "Class Period").

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the Class Period and seeks
damages, costs and expenses and such other relief as determined by
the Court.

Two substantially similar lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court, Middle District of North Carolina on November 22,
2016 and December 30, 2016, respectively.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
defend the lawsuits vigorously.  It is possible that similar
lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name
the same or additional defendants.

Cempra, Inc., a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company, focuses on
developing anti-infectives for the acute care and community
settings to meet critical medical needs in the treatment of
infectious diseases in North America.  Its lead product candidate
is solithromycin, which is in Phase III clinical trials developed
in oral capsules, intravenous, and suspension formulations for the
treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults and
children, as well as for ophthalmic infections and other
indications.  The Company is also developing fusidic acid, an
antibiotic, which is in Phase III clinical trials for the
treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.
In addition, it is developing other uses for solithromycin and
fusidic acid, as well as analogs from its macrolide platform for
non-infectious disease programs; and macrolides for treating
diabetic gastroparesis and gastroesophageal reflux disease.  It
has a collaborative research and development and license agreement
with Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  The Company was formerly known
as Cempra Holdings, LLC and changed its name to Cempra, Inc. in
February 2012.  Cempra, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.


CHINA FINANCE: Final Distribution Motion to be Filed by June 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court has ordered the plaintiffs in a securities class action
filed against China Finance Online Co. Limited to submit their
motion for final distribution of a settlement amount on or before
June 19, 2017, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative securities
class action, Wang, et al., v. China Finance Online Co. Limited,
1:15-cv-07894-RMB.  The original complaint was filed on June 5,
2015 in the Central District of California.

The case was subsequently consolidated with several other similar
actions and transferred to the Southern District of New York,
where an amended consolidated complaint was filed in December
2015.  The amended consolidated complaint alleged that the Company
violated Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by failing to
disclose certain of its transactions involving Langfang Shengshi
Real Estate Development Co. Limited as related party transactions.

The amended consolidated complaint also made claims under Exchange
Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against certain of the Company's
current officers and its current and former auditors and under
Exchange Act Section 20(a) against certain of its current officers
and former directors.  Lead plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily
dismissed (without prejudice) all defendants other than the
Company from the action.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 8,
2016, to which plaintiffs filed an opposition on May 6, 2016 and
the Company filed a reply on May 13, 2016.

During a mediation session in May 2016, the parties agreed to
settle the action for US$3.0 million.  The settlement was
preliminarily approved on November 18, 2016 and notice of the
settlement was provided to putative class members.  No class
members objected to the settlement and none requested exclusion.

The settlement includes a release of all claims asserted in the
Complaint (or any of the previous versions of the complaint) or
all claims that could have been asserted based on the same
operative facts at issue in the Complaint.  This release applies
not only as to the Company, but also as to individuals and
entities included within the definition of "Releasees," which
definition includes, among others, current and former officers and
directors of the Company.

Following a March 21, 2017 fairness hearing, an order was entered
on March 24, 2017 approving the settlement.  The order reflects
that a judgment in the action will be entered after lead
plaintiffs file their motion for final distribution of the
settlement amount, which is due on or before June 19, 2017.

Assuming the court enters the judgment as anticipated by the
settlement approval order and there are no appeals, the approval
of the settlement will become final (and no longer subject to
appeal) 30 days after the judgment is entered.

China Finance Online Co. Limited, a web-based financial services
company in China, provides Chinese retail investors with online
access to securities and commodities trading services, wealth
management products, securities investment advisory services, as
well as financial database and analytics services to institutional
customers.  The Company's prominent flagship portal site,
www.jrj.com, is ranked among the top financial websites in China.
It was founded in 1998 and is based in Beijing, the People's
Republic of China.


CHRYSLER: Seeks Subpoena Against Lawyer in UConnect Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record reports that trade secrets that car
maker Chrysler entrusted to former U.S. attorney Stephen Wigginton
for a class action at U.S. district court in East St. Louis turned
into public record in California.

A lawyer seeking a subpoena for Mr. Wigginton in San Francisco
filed the secrets as exhibits on April 24, and didn't move to seal
them until Chrysler did, on April 27.

As of May 2, the public could not see them.

The California court's public information officer, Lynn Fuller,
said she would try to find out how long the exhibits were public
record.

The exhibits relate to an electronic system, uConnect, at the
center of the action in U.S. district court at East St. Louis.

There, Mr. Wigginton's clients claim remote hackers can seize
control of their vehicles.

The California subpoena seeks third party documents from Cisco
Systems.

On the day Chrysler moved to seal the California record, it moved
for sanctions in the court at East St. Louis.

Chrysler counsel Sharon Rosenberg -- rosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com
-- of Thompson Coburn in St. Louis, wrote that plaintiffs violated
a protective order.

"Not only did plaintiffs include information in a public court
filing that was derived solely from documents designated
confidential during the course of this action, they quoted from
these documents in public filings," Ms. Rosenberg wrote.

"This use of information culled from confidential documents in a
public filing is no different in effect than if plaintiffs had
filed the actual confidential documents in the public record.

"Sanctions are particularly appropriate here where plaintiffs'
quoting of confidential documents in a public filing, combined
with their lackadaisical approach to correcting the clear
violation of one of this court's orders, suggests that the
violation which occurred was intentional."

Ms. Rosenberg wrote that on April 25, Chrysler received a binder
containing a motion to compel Cisco to comply with a subpoena.

"While it was clear that the papers related to this case, they had
no designated court or case number, were unsigned, and bore no
file stamp," she wrote.

She further wrote that the binder didn't indicate whether or where
the papers were filed.

Ms. Rosenberg wrote that Chrysler contacted plaintiffs' counsel on
April 26, and learned that they filed the papers in the Northern
District of California.

She wrote that as she filed the motion, more than 24 hours later,
confidential information remained a matter of public record.

Attached to the filing was a chain of messages between Ms.
Rosenberg and Mr. Wigginton on April 26, starting with her request
for a copy with a file stamp, at 9:36 a.m.

"If these Cisco motion to compel documents were in fact filed with
a court, not under seal, plaintiffs are in clear violation of the
protective order," she wrote.

If that was the case, she wrote, she demanded immediate corrective
action.

The message chain shows that at 2:20 p.m., she wrote that since
she hadn't heard back, she assumed plaintiffs had in fact filed
confidential information in public court documents.

Mr. Wigginton replied at 2:23 p.m., and attached the California
documents.

He disagreed about violating the protective order, but wrote that
plaintiffs would address her concerns by asking the California
court to seal portions of the brief.

At 3:26 p.m., Ms. Rosenberg wrote, "Your response is
insufficient."

At 3:42 p.m., Mr. Wigginton wrote that out of an abundance of
caution he would ask local counsel to take actions as soon as
possible.

At 4:42 p.m., Ms. Rosenberg wrote that she was available to meet
and confer today, and she underlined today.  "I would hope that
given the urgent nature of this matter one of the seven counsel of
record can make themselves available," she wrote.

At 5:13 p.m., Mr. Wigginton wrote, "When I arrived at the office I
did not plan to be in dispute with you and your client today. Like
your office we have other matters scheduled.  Due to the tone and
tenor of your emails and the allegations you have made, which we
disagree, with this dispute and subsequent discovery disputes of
this nature as well as the ones we will be bringing will be
handled at my level."

The next day, when Ms. Rosenberg moved for sanctions, she filed a
separate motion to seal an exhibit in support of the motion.

She wrote that plaintiffs issued a subpoena to Cisco last
September, for documents back to 2010, and a dispute ensued.

She wrote that plaintiffs initiated the California action to
compel production and that they included documents about
Chrysler's general design and development process and about its
specific engineering and testing.

She wrote that from the information, competitors could determine
efforts Chrysler undertook to evaluate and improve products.

"Additionally, the information relates to cyber security threats
and defensive measures," she wrote.

Magistrate Judge Donald Wilkerson ordered plaintiffs to respond by
May 4.

Also on the 27th, in California, Chrysler moved to strike the
California action.

On May 1, in California, Cisco moved to extend its deadline for
responding to the subpoena from May 8 to a week after a ruling on
Chrysler's motion to strike.

Belleville lawyer Brian Flynn stands as lead plaintiff in both
actions. [GN]


COMBE INC: Finkelstein & Krinsk's Hair Dye Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, LLP, an investment and consumer
protection national law firm, is currently proceeding with a class
action lawsuit filed against Combe, Inc., the manufacturer of Just
for Men hair dye products (Case No. 37-2016-00039671-CU-BT-CTL).
Plaintiff's counsel is seeking information from Just for Men
consumers describing the adverse reactions that may have been
experienced over the past decade including, but not limited to,
the suffering of welts, burns, lesions, wounds, skin
depigmentation, and/or other adverse reactions that resulted from
using Just For Men product.  The underlying complaint alleges
Combe failed to warn consumers of the injuries caused by Just For
Men and by doing so, gained sales by consumers who would have
otherwise proceeded differently.

If you purchased Just for Men hair dye product and suffered any of
the reaction(s) mentioned above please contact Finklelstein &
Krinsk, LLP and ask for Shannon [619-238-1333], or email your
response to ska@classactionlaw.com.  A qualified attorney will
call you back to answer any questions you may have and/or discuss
what assistance we may be able to provide.

The lawsuit was filed on November 10, 2016 in San Diego on behalf
of a California class.


CORESITE REALTY: Court Sets June 5 to Hear Employment Class Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for Superior Court approval of an agreement to settle a
class action suit against CoreSite Realty Corporation regarding
alleged employment law violations has been scheduled for June 5,
2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

On July 9, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
against the Company, alleging various employment law violations
related to overtime, meal and break periods, minimum wage, timely
payment of wages, wage statements, payroll records and business
expenses.

On March 15, 2016, the Company filed a responsive pleading
generally denying the allegations.

On July 27, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, pursuant to which the parties agreed to settle the
lawsuit. The settlement, which remains subject to Superior Court
approval, resolves the matter on a class-wide basis, on behalf of
all non-exempt employees in California, as well as related class
action lawsuit filed on July 22, 2016, alleging similar claims, in
exchange for a US$600,000 payment to be made by the Company.

A hearing for Superior Court approval of the settlement has been
scheduled for June 5, 2017.

The Company disclosed that there can be no assurance that the
settlement will be finally approved by the Superior Court. It said
it intends to vigorously defend this legal proceeding if the
settlement is not approved.

CoreSite Realty Corporation engages in the ownership, acquisition,
construction, and management of data centers.  It was founded in
2010 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Paci" Suit Alleges FACTA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
EMIGUELA PACI, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-06413 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 4, 2017),
seeks damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, and
any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court under the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA).

Emiguela Paci individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons brings the complaint against Costco for willfully
violating the FACTA amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), in that Costco printed the first six digits of her
American Express credit card account number, in addition to the
last four digits, on an electronically printed receipt she was
provided with by Costco inside a Costco store.

Costco Wholesale is the largest American membership-only warehouse
club that provides a wide selection of merchandise, and as of
2015, was the second largest retailer in the world after
Walmart.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 S. Northwest HWY, Ste. 300
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 696 7282
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 696 7282
          E-mail: cwamer@wamer.legal


CUBESMART: Awaits Court Action on Amended Class Action Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint in a putative class action filed in New
Jersey against CubeSmart is still pending court approval,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

On July 13, 2015, the putative class action was filed against the
Company in the Federal District Court of New Jersey seeking to
obtain declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
New Jersey consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company
of the New Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice
Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The Company brought a motion to partially dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim, which motion was granted in part and
denied in part.

The plaintiff has moved to file an amended complaint to re-allege
the action dismissed by the Court, which motion is presently
pending decision.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the action.

CubeSmart is an equity real estate investment trust.  The firm
invests in the real estate markets of the United States.  It
engages in ownership, operation, acquisition and development of
self-storage facilities.  The firm was formerly known as U-Store-
It Trust.  CubeSmart was founded in July 2004 and is based in
Malvern, Pennsylvania.


DAILY NEWS: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daily News L.P.  The
case is captioned as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Daily News
L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03314 (S.D.N.Y., May 4,
2017).

Daily News publishes newspaper. It also distributes news and
features online through its website. The company was incorporated
in 1992.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Defends Suit on Behalf of RMBS Trusts
----------------------------------------------------------
CDF Funding, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-D filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution
period from March 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017, that Deutsche Bank
Trust Company Americas (DBTCA), as indenture trustee, continues to
defend itself in a derivative and class action complaint filed on
behalf of private-label RMBS trusts.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by
Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a
derivative action against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
(DBNTC) and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on
behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts
asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust
Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged
failure to perform their duties as trustees for the trusts.

Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and
filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of and for
the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially
overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action.
The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total
realized collateral losses of US$89.4 billion, but the complaint
does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.

DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19,
2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural
grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and
Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction.
The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the
motion to dismiss.

On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
federal court.  In the amended complaint, in connection with 62
trusts governed by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims
for breach of contract, violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary
duty, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest.  The
amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered
total realized collateral losses of US$9.8 billion, but the
complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum
certain.

On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On January 23, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part
DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss.  The court granted the motion
to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' conflict-of-interest claim,
thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with
respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim (except as noted
below) and claim for violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those
claims to proceed.

On January 26, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and
proposed order dismissing plaintiffs' claim for breach of
fiduciary duty.

On January 27, 2017, the court entered the parties' joint
stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs' claim for breach of
fiduciary duty be dismissed.

On February 3, 2017, following a hearing concerning DBNTC and
DBTCA's motion to dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a
short form order dismissing (i) plaintiffs' representation and
warranty claims as to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors
had entered bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims
against such originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and
(ii) plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were premised upon any
alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers.

On March 27, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended
complaint.  Discovery is ongoing.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Denies Royal Park's Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied on March 21, 2017, Royal Park Investments SA/NV's motion
for class certification in a complaint against Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company (DBNTC), according to the Form 10-D/A filed
by GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2012-GCJ7 with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period from
March 11, 2017 to April 12, 2017.

On June 18, 2014, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a class and
derivative action complaint on behalf of investors in ten
residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts against DBNTC
in the District Court asserting claims for alleged violations of
the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), breach of contract and
breach of trust based on DBNTC's alleged failure to perform its
duties as trustee for the trusts.

Royal Park's complaint alleges that the total realized losses of
the ten trusts amount to over US$3.1 billion, but does not allege
damages in a sum certain.

On February 3, 2016, the court granted in part and dismissed in
part plaintiffs' claims: the court dismissed plaintiff's TIA claim
and its derivative theory and denied DBNTC's motion to dismiss the
breach of contract and breach of trust claims.

On March 18, 2016 DBNTC filed an answer to the complaint.

On May 26, 2016, Royal Park filed a motion for class
certification.

On March 21, 2017, the court denied Royal Park's motion for class
certification, but granted Royal Park leave to renew its motion to
propose a redefined class.  Discovery is ongoing.


DIRECT AIRLINE: FairLaw Firm Files Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
MENAFN reports that Azor, et al. v. Direct Airline Services, Inc.
and Oasis Outsourcing, Inc., a lawsuit involving allegations of
unpaid Living Wages in violation of Section 2-8.9 of the Miami-
Dade County Code, has been filed as a class action in the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County.  The Plaintiffs in
this action, represented by Brian Pollock of FairLaw Firm, Ronald
Rodman and Elizabeth Estrada of Friedman, Rodman & Frank, are
hourly employees who claim that they did not receive the proper
Living Wage of 15.52 per hour because their employers improperly
deducted money from their pay for participating in their
employers' Health Benefit Plan, even though they specifically
declined / rejected this participation in writing.

In this putative collective action lawsuit, the hourly employees
allege that Direct Airline Services, Inc. and Oasis Outsourcing,
Inc., violated, and continue to violate, the Section 2-8.9 of the
Miami-Dade County Code, by failing to properly compensate them at
the full Living Wage rate of 15.52 per hour.

Azor, et al. v. Direct Airline Services, Inc. and Oasis
Outsourcing, Inc. (Miami-Dade Circuit Court Case Number: 17-007921
CA 01) was filed in the Eleventh Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Florida.  The presiding judge is Judge Lisa Walsh. The
FairLaw Firm and Friedman, Rodman, & Frank intend to ask Judge
Walsh to certify the case as a "Class Action" so that they can
proceed on behalf of other hourly ployees who worked for the
Defendants at the Miami International Airport and who were subject
to the same pay practices.

FairLaw Firm overtime attorney Brian H. Pollock
(http://www.fairlawattorney.com)along with Ronald D. Rodman and
Elizabeth Estrada (http://www.floridainjurylawyer.pro)is
representing the hourly airport employees in an effort to recover
the remainder of the Living Wage owed to them.  According to a
Section 2-8.9 of the Miami-Dade Code, Plaintiffs seek to recover
the remainder of the hourly Living Wage owed to them, plus a
penalty of 500 per week for each employee who was underpaid, plus
their attorneys' fees and costs.

All hourly employees who currently work for and/or who used to
work for Direct Airline Services, Inc. and/or Oasis Outsourcing,
Inc. at the Miami International Airport within the two (2) years
and who were not paid proper Living Wages are eligible to join the
case.  For more information about Azor, et al. v. Direct Airline
Services, Inc. and Oasis Outsourcing, Inc., or to join the case,
please contact the FairLaw Firm at (305) 230-4884 or visit
http://www.fairlawattorney.comor Friedman Rodman & Frank at (305)
448-8585 or visit http://www.floridainjurylawyer.pro.[GN]


DONOSTIA LLC: Faces "Hart" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
ERIC HART, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, against DONOSTIA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00134
(W.D. Tex., April 28, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff and other and
Assistant Store Managers regularly worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek without being paid overtime wages, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked an average of 60
hours per workweek. Plaintiff sometimes worked 75 hours per
workweek.

Defendant owns and operates Jimmy John's franchised locations.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an Assistant Manager.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lynn Coyle, Esq.
     Christopher Benoit, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF LYNN COYLE, PLLC
     2515 North Stanton Street
     El Paso, TX 79902
     Phone: (915) 532-5544
     Fax: (915) 532-5566
     E-mail: lynn@coylefirm.com
             chris@coylefirm.com

        - and -

     Sally Abrahamson, Esq.
     Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 245-1000
     Fax: (212) 977-4005
     E-mail:  sabrahamson@outtengolden.com
              mlitrownik@outtengolden.com

        - and -

     LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
     1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: (216) 522-9000
     Fax: (216) 522-9007
     E-mail:  drew@lgmlegal.com


DRYSHIPS INC: Law Firms Investigate Potential Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MarineLog reports that an item in the Wall Street Journal has been
followed by announcements from a number of law firms saying that
they are investigating potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of DryShips Inc. resulting from allegations that
DryShips may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

Among the law firms pursuing investigations is Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC, which describes itself as a corporate litigation
boutique.

The firm notes that from November 9 through November 16, 2016,
DryShips' stock price rose from $163 to $2,336 per share.  It
cites the Wall Street Journal as reporting that "day after shares
peaked," DryShips "embarked on a series of stock sales totaling
more than $500 million," and continued to describe how DryShips
sold its stock to Kalani Investments, which then sold the stock to
"small investors."  It further reported that this "sequence of
events" could "yield" George Economou, DryShips' Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, "tens of millions in profits."

Since DryShips stock peaked in mid-November at $2,336, the stock
has dropped 99.9%, to $1.30 as of April 28, 2017, said the firm in
a press release issued on May 1, 2017. [In after hours trading
today, it had fallen to $1.06.]

Citing the same Wall Street Journal story and the same share price
movements, the Rosen Law Firm, which describes itself as "a global
investor rights law firm," says that it is preparing a class
action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by DryShips investors.

The investigation concerns whether DryShips and certain of its
officers and/or directors have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Another law firm investigating DryShips is Scott + Scott. So, too,
is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP. As is Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. [GN]


DUN & BRADSTREET: Pentz Seeks Review of Ruling in "Thomas" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objector James E. Pentz filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Thomas, et al. v. Dun and Bradstreet
Credibility Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-03194-BRO-GJS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Jeffrey A.
Thomas filed suit against DBCC alleging that it violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act because it placed telephone
calls to the Plaintiff's cell phone using an automatic telephone
dialing system.

The appellate case is captioned as Jeffrey Thomas, et al. v. Dun
and Bradstreet Credibility Corp., Case No. 17-55486, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 11, 2017;

   -- Transcript must be filed by court reporter on August 9,
      2017;

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record must be
      served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1
      on September 18, 2017; and

   -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record must be
      served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1
      on October 18, 2017.[BN]


EL SUSHI LOCO: "Rivera" Seeks Payment of Unpaid Regular, OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rivera, on behalf of all similarly situated employees
Plaintiff, v. El Sushi Loco, Inc., Defendant, Case No. BC659483,
(Cal. Super., April 27, 2017), seeks all wages due, reimbursement
for necessary business expenditures under the California Labor
Code, including both regular and overtime wages, compensation for
missed meal and rest periods in violation of applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders, final pay upon termination or
resignation as well as damages, declaratory and injunctive relief
resulting from failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements and restitution relief under the California Business
and Professions Code for unfair business practices.

Defendant operates a restaurant that offers Mexican-inspired
Japanese sushi rolls and noodles where Plaintiff worked as a
server.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Atoy H. Wilson, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      Email: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net
             awilson@mahonev-law.net


EQT PRODUCTION: Appeals Ruling in "Adkins" Suit to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant EQT Production Company filed an appeal from a court
ruling relating to the lawsuit styled EVA MAE ADKINS, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. EQT PRODUCTION
COMPANY, Case No. 1:10-cv-00041-JPJ-PMS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Virginia at Abingdon.

The appellate case is captioned as EQT Production Company v. Eva
Adkins, Case No. 17-196, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 28,
2017, the Hon. James P. Jones granted the renewed motion for class
certification and the lawsuit is certified as a class action with
respect to these claims:

   a. The claims for conversion, excluding the issue of the
      applicability of the First Marketable Product Rule; and

   b. The claims for breach of contract, excluding the issues of
      the Defendant's allegedly improper deductions and
      applicability of the First Marketable Product Rule, and
      conditional upon a motion being filed within 30 days
      requesting the substitution of an appropriate class
      representative and an order thereafter being duly entered
      by the Court granting such substitution.

Two subclasses are certified as to:

   (1) the claims for conversion (the "Conversion Class"), which
       is defined as:

       Each person to whom EQT Production Company ("EQT") has
       paid since June 8, 2005, or is currently paying royalties
       under a lease or leases on coalbed methane gas ("CBM")
       produced by EQT from the Nora Field in Virginia and whose
       lease or leases do not contain language expressly
       authorizing the lessee to deduct or expressly precluding
       the lessee from deducting the cost of gathering, treating,
       compression, dehydration, processing, and/or
       transportation when calculating royalty payments,
       according to business records maintained by EQT.

       The Conversion Class excludes (a) EQT, (b) the federal
       government, (c) any person who serves as a judge in this
       civil action and his/her spouse, (d) any person who
       operates a CBM well in Virginia, and (e) any person who
       holds a working interest ownership in a CBM well operated
       by EQT in Virginia.

   (2) the claims for breach of contract (the "Breach of Contract
       Class"), which is defined as:

       Each person to whom EQT Production Company ("EQT") has
       paid since June 8, 2005, or is currently paying royalties
       under a lease or leases on coalbed methane gas ("CBM")
       produced by EQT from the Nora Field in Virginia and whose
       lease or leases do not contain language expressly
       authorizing the lessee to deduct or expressly precluding
       the lessee from deducting the cost of gathering, treating,
       compression, dehydration, processing, and/or
       transportation when calculating royalty payments, and
       whose lease or leases are identical "Type A" leases as
       categorized by the plaintiff's expert, Alyce Hoge,
       according to business records maintained by EQT.

       The Breach of Contract Class excludes (a) EQT, (b) the
       federal government, (c) any person who serves as a judge
       in this civil action and his/her spouse, (d) any person
       who operates a CBM well in Virginia, and (e) any person
       who holds a working interest ownership in a CBM well
       operated by EQT in Virginia.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY is represented by:

          Mark Edward Frye, Esq.
          PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE
          804 Anderson Street
          Bristol, TN 37620-2009
          Telephone: (423) 793-4815
          E-mail: mfrye@pennstuart.com

               - and -

          Stephen McQuiston Hodges, Esq.
          Seth Michael Land, Esq.
          Wade Wallihan Massie, Esq.
          PENNSTUART
          208 East Main Street
          P. O. Box 2288
          Abingdon, VA 24212-2288
          Telephone: (276) 628-5151
          Facsimile: (276) 628-4918
          E-mail: shodges@pennstuart.com
                  sland@pennstuart.com
                  wmassie@pennstuart.com

Plaintiff-Respondent EVA MAE ADKINS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Alexander, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP
          150 Fourth Avenue North
          One Nashville Place
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          E-mail: ealexander@lchb.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-0000
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com

               - and -

          Daniel Edward Seltz, Esq.
          David S. Stellings, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          250 Hudson Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: dseltz@lchb.com
                  dstellings@lchb.com

               - and -

          Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, PC
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          Facsimile: (615) 515-3395
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW OFFICES
          P. O. Box 927
          Lexington, MS 39095-0000
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          David Malcom McMullan, Jr., Esq.
          DON BARRETT PA
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Lindsey Shaver, Esq.
          P. O. Box 2032
          Abingdon, VA 24212
          Telephone: (276) 525-1103

               - and -

          Jackson Stuart White, Jr., Esq.
          WHITE LAW OFFICE
          P. O. Box 286
          Abingdon, VA 24212-0000
          Telephone: (276) 619-3831


EQT PRODUCTION: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of "Adair" Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
EQT Production Company filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled ROBERT ADAIR, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, Case No. 1:10-cv-
00037-JPJ-PMS, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Virginia at Abingdon.

The appellate case is captioned as EQT Production Company v.
Robert Adair, Case No. 17-195, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 28,
2017, the Hon. James P. Jones granted the renewed motion for class
certification and certified the lawsuit as a class action.

The certified class is defined as:

     All coalbed methane gas ("CBM") claimants who were
     identified by EQT Production Company ("EQT") in filings with
     the Virginia Gas and Oil Board as unleased owners of CBM
     estate interests and for whom EQT has applied, as of the
     later of the date of this Court's class certification order
     or the resolution of an interlocutory appeal of such order,
     pursuant to Virginia Code Section 45.1-361.22:2(A), for the
     release of funds held in escrow or internally, and all such
     gas claimants who have received distributions from escrow or
     directly from EQT as a result of a judicial determination of
     ownership or agreement between June 15, 2010 and January 1,
     2016. "Gas claimants" is as defined by Virginia Code Section
     45.1-361.1.

     The Class excludes (a) EQT, (b) any person who serves as a
     judge in this civil action and his/her spouse, (c) any
     individuals who have received a Court-supervised accounting
     of EQT's CBM royalty payments into escrow or internal
     suspense, and (d) any person who operates a CBM well in
     Virginia and any person who holds a working interest in a
     CBM well operated by EQT in Virginia.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY is represented by:

          Mark Edward Frye, Esq.
          PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE
          804 Anderson Street
          Bristol, TN 37620-2009
          Telephone: (423) 793-4815
          E-mail: mfrye@pennstuart.com

               - and -

          Stephen McQuiston Hodges, Esq.
          Seth Michael Land, Esq.
          Wade Wallihan Massie, Esq.
          PENNSTUART
          208 East Main Street
          P. O. Box 2288
          Abingdon, VA 24212-2288
          Telephone: (276) 628-5151
          Facsimile: (276) 628-4918
          E-mail: shodges@pennstuart.com
                  sland@pennstuart.com
                  wmassie@pennstuart.com

Plaintiff-Respondent ROBERT ADAIR, and on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated, is represented by:

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW OFFICES
          P. O. Box 927
          Lexington, MS 39095-0000
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Richard R. Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
          P. O. Box 339
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-4960
          Facsimile: (866) 430-5459
          E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

               - and -

          David Malcom McMullan, Jr., Esq.
          Sara Katherine Riley, Esq.
          DON BARRETT PA
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
                  kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-0000
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com

               - and -

          Daniel Edward Seltz, Esq.
          David S. Stellings, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          250 Hudson Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: dseltz@lchb.com
                  dstellings@lchb.com

               - and -

          Peter G. Glubiak, Esq.
          GLUBIAK LAW OFFICE
          19840 King William Road
          P. O. Box 27
          King William, VA 23086
          Telephone: (804) 769-1616
          Facsimile: (804) 769-1897
          E-mail: glubiaklaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Brian Herrington, Esq.
          HERRINGTON LAW PA
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (601) 376-9331
          E-mail: bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Larry D. Moffett, Esq.
          DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL, PA
          265 North Lamar Boulevard
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 232-8979
          Facsimile: (662) 232-8940
          E-mail: lmoffett@danielcoker.com

               - and -

          Jackson Stuart White, Jr., Esq.
          WHITE LAW OFFICE
          P. O. Box 286
          Abingdon, VA 24212-0000
          Telephone: (276) 619-3831


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Still Defends 3 MERS-Related Litigations
------------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp continues to defend itself in three class
action lawsuits related to Mortgage Electronic Registration
Services (MERS), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Services (MERS), EverHome
Mortgage Company, EverBank and other lenders and servicers that
have held mortgages through MERS are parties to the following
material and class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege
improper mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure
to pay recording fees in violation of state recording statutes:

  (1) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney
General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al., filed in
October 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga County, Ohio;
and

  (2) Delaware County, PA, Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP, Inc., et
al., filed in November 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of
Delaware County, Pennsylvania.

On November 16, 2016, the surrounding counties of Portland Oregon
filed a MERS lawsuit against EverBank, MERS and other financial
institutions in Mulmoth County entitled County of Clackamas, et
al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc, et al.

In these material and class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in
each case generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the
defendants to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory
and punitive damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit
and contest all such claims vigorously.

EverBank Financial Corp, a savings and loan holding company,
provides a range of financial products and services to
individuals, and small and mid-size businesses in the United
States.  It operates through Consumer Banking and Commercial
Banking.  It offers its products and services through integrated
online and mobile financial portal, and financial centers.
EverBank Financial Corp was incorporated in 2004 and is
headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


EXPEDIA INC: Still Defends in Putative Class Action Litigations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc. and its units continue to defend themselves in
various putative class action proceedings as disclosed in the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On March 7, 2017, a putative class action was filed in the same
court as the Buckeye Tree Lodge lawsuit, 2020 O Street
Corporation, Inc. v. Expedia, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-
01186-JSC, asserting Lanham Act claims, and claims for unfair
competition, unjust enrichment and restitution. The court
determined that the case was related to the earlier filed Buckeye
Tree Lodge case, and therefore assigned the matter to the same
judge.

In an Israeli putative class action lawsuit, Hotels.com filed an
application with the court on March 15, 2017 challenging service
of process.

On March 10, 2017, HomeAway.com, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint in the Arnold v. HomeAway, Inc., et al. case.

Expedia, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally.
The Company operates through four segments: Core OTA, Trivago,
Egencia, and HomeAway.  It facilitates the booking of hotel rooms,
airline seats, car rentals, and destination services from its
travel suppliers; and acts as an agent in the transactions.  The
company serves leisure and corporate travelers, offline retail
travel agents, and travel service providers through Expedia.com,
Hotels.com, Hotwire.com, Wotif.com, Wotif.co.nz,
lastminute.com.au, lastminute.com.nz, travel.com.au,
CarRentals.com, and Orbitz.com Websites; and Travelocity,
HomeAway, Egencia, trivago, Classic Vacations, Expedia Local
Expert, and Expedia CruiseShipCenters brands, as well as Expedia
Affiliate Network.  It also engages in advertising and media
business.  The Company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Bellevue, Washington.


FCC ENVIRONMENTAL: "Butler" Sues for Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Norman Butler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FCC Environmental Services, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-01192 (S.D. Tex., April 17, 2017) seeks to
recover overtime wages and liquidated damages for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

FCC knowingly, willfully and with reckless disregard carried out
its illegal pattern of failing to timely pay Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees' overtime compensation for all of the
overtime hours they worked.

Plaintiff Butler was employed by FCC as a waste disposal driver at
their Houston Texas facility within the relevant time period.

Defendant FCC Environmental Services, LLC operates in the waste
disposal industry in three states Alabama, Florida and Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Autin W. Anderson, Esq.
   Clif Alexander, Esq.
   Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
   Anderson2X, PLLC
   819 N. Upper Broadway
   Corpus Christi, TX 78401
   Tel: (361) 452-1279
   Fax: (361) 452-1284
   Email: austin@a2xlaw.com
          clif@a2xlaw.com
          lauren@a2xlaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dorrian, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Hispanic
applicants were systemically denied line-worker jobs at Ford Motor
Co.'s Chicago assembly plant since at least 2013, a lawsuit
alleges (Chaidez v. Ford Motor Co., N.D. Ill., No. 1:17-cv-03244,
class action filed 4/28/17).

The bias, based on race or national origin, may be either the
result of intentional discrimination or an unintended consequence
of Ford's hiring practices at the plant, a group of seven job
applicants allege in the proposed class action.  The result is
that the Harvey, Ill., facility employs a primarily black
workforce "to the overwhelming detriment of Hispanic and/or Latino
applicants," the April 28 complaint states.

Hiring is done mostly through an unemployment office: Ford
typically tells existing employees when it will be hiring line
workers, and the employees tell interested applicants they know to
apply through the unemployment office.  While a small percentage
of line workers at the plant are Hispanic, since 2013, few if any
new hires have been Hispanic, according to the complaint.  The
seven named plaintiffs each applied and was qualified for work at
the facility but was denied a job on one or more occasions.

The lawsuit claims applicants who fill out a form with the Harvey
unemployment office are supposed to have their names added to a
referral list and then be sent to a third-party consultant for
pre-employment testing.  The testing includes a basic skills test,
drug testing and a background check.

"Either the pre-employment testing creates an impermissibly
adverse impact on Hispanics and/or Latinos, or Ford itself is
excluding" such workers from the hiring process, the complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois states.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made the first type of
alleged discrimination a focus of its strategic enforcement plan
for 2017-2021.  The agency will target class-based recruitment and
hiring practices that discriminate based on a protected status,
such as race or national origin.  Specifically, the agency is on
watch for employers "steering" a group of workers into or away
from certain jobs through screening tools or similar practices
that have a disproportionate impact based on the protected status,
the EEOC said in its October 2016 plan.

Union Chair Behind Intentional Bias?

The discrimination, if intentional, has been carried out through a
scheme put in place by Allan Millender, the United Auto Workers'
plant chairman, who is black, the plaintiffs contend.

Ford was or should have been aware of Mr. Millender's biased
influence over line worker hiring, according to the lawsuit.  The
company previously fired Millender following earlier allegations
of discrimination but reinstated him under an agreement with the
UAW, it asserts.

The automaker benefits from the alleged scheme cooked up by
Millender "and his cohorts," the complaint alleges.
Mr. Millender's union standing is enhanced by his influence on
hiring, which facilitates collective bargaining that benefits the
automaker, the workers charge.

The Harvey unemployment office carried out the scheme in concert
with or at the direction of Mr. Millender, according to the
complaint.

The complaint includes both disparate treatment and disparate
impact claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Mr. Millender and other "unknown persons" are sued individually.

Bizzieri Law Offices LLC represents the proposed class. The firm
didn't respond May 1 to Bloomberg BNA's request for comment.

A Ford spokesman told Bloomberg BNA May 1 that the company doesn't
discriminate and won't comment on pending cases.

"While we cannot comment on pending litigation, it is the long-
standing policy of Ford Motor Company to not discriminate on the
base of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, sexual
orientation or gender identity," the spokesman said by email.

No attorney had filed an appearance yet for the individual
defendants.

The United Auto Workers, which isn't named as a party to the
lawsuit, declined to comment. [GN]


FYRE MEDIA: Faces Second Class Action Over Fyre Festival
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cooke, writing for Complete Music Update, reports that the
Ja Rule-backed Fyre Festival may have been a traumatic experience
for those who attended, but it's proving to be the most
entertaining of events for everyone else.  And it could all prove
pretty lucrative for the lawyers too, as a second class action in
relation to the aborted island extravaganza was filed on May 2.

As previously reported, the Fyre Festival, due to take place on
the island of Great Exuma in the Bahamas, was promoted as a luxury
experience with tickets priced at up to $12,000.

The brainchild of Ja Rule and computer programmer Billy McFarland,
and promoted by an assortment of influencers on the social
networks, Fyre was an ambitious endeavour that crashed
spectacularly.  As soon as festival-goers started arriving, it
became clear organisers hadn't managed to build the required
infrastructure for a basic music festival, let alone the luxury
experience that had been sold to ticket-buyers.

The whole thing quickly became a PR disaster as early arrivals to
the festival island started posting a steady stream of photos of
the unfolding shambles to the same social networks that had been
so deftly employed to promote the event.  Meanwhile others stuck
on aeroplanes that had been chartered by Fyre Media to get
festival-goers to Great Exuma, but which were going nowhere,
posted footage of airline staff announcing that the party was off.

Press statements were quickly issued apologising profusely for the
debacle but promising that Fyre Festival 2018 would deliver the
goods, while the tourist board for the Bahamas hit out at the
negative portrayal of Great Exuma as some sort of remote hell hole
surrounded by shark infested waters.

Celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos was the first to chase the
metaphorical ambulance seen speeding away from Great Exuma,
quickly filing a lawsuit on behalf of one festival-goer seeking $5
million in damages for "alleged fraud, breach of contract, breach
of covenant of good faith and negligent misrepresentation".  It's
a class action that Mr. Geragos reckons could ultimately involve
over 150 people and seek a minimum of $100 million in damages.

A second class action was filed in relation to the event in the LA
County Superior Court on May 2 with John Girardi representing
Chelsea Chinery, Shannon McAuliffe and Desiree Flores.  This case
accuses the Fyre Festival of breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation and fraud, and hits out at the way the event was
marketed in addition to the shitstorm that occurred once festival-
goers arrived on site.

Mr. Girardi's lawsuit alleges that, not only did so called social
media influencers make promises about the Fyre Festival that
organisers were in no position to deliver on, but they didn't
declare that they were being paid to big up the event, breaching
FTC rules.  Says the legal papers, according to The Hollywood
Reporter, "social media 'influencers' made no attempt to disclose
to consumers that they were being compensated for promoting the
Fyre Festival".

Anyone who bought tickets to the Fyre Festival is invited to join
Girardi's class action, with the class being split into three
groups: those who spent money on tickets but didn't actually
depart for the festival before it crashed and burned; those who
got stuck on aeroplanes destined for the event; and those who
actually spent some time on Great Exuma.

Quite how lucrative all this litigation turns out to be presumably
depends on whether the courts allow plaintiffs to go after Ja Rule
and Billy McFarlane personally, in addition to the Fyre Media
company which you have to think is unlikely to survive the fall
out of the aborted event.  Both class actions currently name the
rapper and the computer programmer as co-defendants. [GN]


G4S SECURE: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, "Arteaga" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ARTEAGA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), the
Plaintiff, v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA), INC. a Florida
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. RGl7859072 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 4, 2017), seeks to
recover overtime compensation, minimum wages for all hours worked,
and premium wages under California Labor Code.

Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt, hourly-paid
employee Security Guard in Orange County from approximately 2012
through the present. Defendants continue to employ non-exempt,
hourly-paid Security Guards at multiple client sites throughout
California.

The Plaintiff and class members worked in excess of eight hours in
a day, in excess of 12 hours in a day, and/or in excess of 40
hours in a week without receiving overtime compensation. For
example, Defendants had a policy and/or practice of failing to
adequately staff guard coverage at customer sites and not taking
sufficient efforts to coordinate employee schedules to permit meal
breaks. In addition, Defendants had a policy and/or practice of
requiring Plaintiff and class members to remain "on-call" and on-
duty by requiring them to monitor their post or a communications
device during their meal. This time was spent off-the-clock and
was not paid by Defendant. As a result, Plaintiff and other class
members were required to work through meal periods, cut their meal
periods short, suffer interruptions during meal periods, and/or
take meal periods after extended periods of time as a result of
Defendants' inadequate scheduling and on-duty practices. Because
Plaintiff and class members worked shifts of eight hours a day
and/or 40 hours in a week, some of this uncompensated work time
qualified for overtime premium.

The Defendants provide security monitoring and protection
services, including the staffing of Security Guards at client
sites to monitor and report security breaches at those locations,
to clients throughout the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
          THE BAINER LAW FIRM
          1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100
          Oakland, CA 04612
          Telephone: (510)922 1802
          Facsimile: (510)844 7701
          E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com


GAZIT-GLOBE: Court Sets Document Disclosure Hearing for May 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
Additional hearing on document disclosure in a consolidated
shareholders' case against Gazit-Globe Ltd., among other
defendants, is set for May 25, 2017, according to the Company's
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In July and August 2014, a number of lawsuits were filed with the
Economic Affairs Division of the Tel Aviv District Court
requesting class action certification against U. Dori Construction
Ltd. (Dori Construction), Amos Luzon Development and Energy Group
Ltd. (together, Luzon Group), their directors and officers and
their auditors, as well as against Gazit-Globe Israel
(Development) Ltd. (Gazit Development) and Gazit-Globe.

The motions deal with damage allegedly caused to the shareholders
of Dori Construction and/or Luzon Group, respectively, as a result
of the publication of allegedly erroneous information by Dori
Construction, including in its financial statements, and as a
result of its alleged failure to report, at the required time,
material adverse information concerning the financial results and
financial position of Dori Construction and Luzon Group.

The claims alleged include claims under the Securities Law, 1968,
for inclusion of erroneous information in financial statements and
deficient and erroneous reporting, a negligent tort claim under
the Torts Laws and a breach of statutory duty claim under the
Securities Law and the Regulations promulgated thereunder, as well
as the Companies Law.

The aggregate amount of such claims is approximately NIS75
million, which is not material for the Company.  The motions have
been consolidated into a single proceeding (apart from three
motions that have been dismissed).  The Company and the other
respondents have submitted their responses to the amended motion,
subsequent to which the petitioners filed their replies and also
added and lodged a motion for disclosure of documents which do not
belong to the Company or Gazit Development.

In December 2015, a preliminary hearing was held on the amended
motion, as a result of which the parties agreed to transfer the
proceeding to mediation.  The parties further agreed that, at this
stage, the hearing on the motion for disclosure of documents would
be deferred.

In August 2016, the petitioners notified the Court of the failure
of the mediation proceeding.  The petitioners requested to resume
the hearing of the motion for the disclosure of documents and to
provide for further deliberation in the proceeding.

On February 12, 2017, a hearing was held on the motion for the
disclosure of documents, in which the Court ordered the parties to
reach understandings with respect to the requested documents.  The
petitioners updated the court about the pending matters and an
additional hearing was scheduled for May 25, 2017, regarding the
motion for the disclosure of documents.  At this preliminary stage
of the proceeding, the outcome of the lawsuit cannot be assessed.

Additionally, two derivative actions were filed in 2014 against
Dori Construction and Luzon Group and their directors and officers
in connection with a dividend distribution made by Dori
Construction to its shareholders.  The court has decided that a
ruling with regard to the procedural rules in these motions will
be granted at a later date, following the filing of the unified
motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action.  Since the sale
of the Company's interests in Luzon Group, the Company is no
longer receiving updates regarding the status of these
proceedings.

Gazit-Globe Ltd., through its subsidiaries, acquires, owns,
develops, operates, and manages supermarket-anchored shopping
centers in North America, Europe, and internationally.  The
Company was incorporated in 1982 and is headquartered in Tel Aviv,
Israel.


GC SERVICES: Faces "Grichetchkina" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership. The case is captioned as Natalia Grichetchkina, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. GC Services Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02718 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Igor B Litvak, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (646) 796 4905
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com

               - and -

          Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
          Daniel Cohen, PLLC
          407 Rockaway Avenue
          Brooklyn, NY 11212
          Telephone: (646) 645 8482
          Facsimile: (347) 665 1545
          E-mail: dancohenlaw@gmail.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Still Faces Class Action Suits over 2014 Recalls
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company continues to defend itself in putative
class action lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada related to its
various recalls in 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

In 2014, General Motors announced various recalls relating to
safety, customer satisfaction and other matters.  Those recalls
included recalls to repair ignition switches that could under
certain circumstances unintentionally move from the "run" position
to the "accessory" or "off" position with a corresponding loss of
power, which could in turn prevent airbags from deploying in the
event of a crash.

Through April 17, 2017, the Company was aware of 100 putative
class actions pending against GM in various federal and state
trial courts in the U.S. and 20 putative class actions pending in
various Provincial Courts in Canada alleging that consumers who
purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or General Motors
Corporation had been economically harmed by one or more of the
recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions
associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases).

In general, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported
compensatory damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain
damages or damages related to alleged diminution in value of the
vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other
relief.

There are also two civil actions brought by state governmental
entities relating to the 2014 recalls that seek injunctive relief
as well as civil penalties and attorneys' fees for alleged
violations of state laws.

General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide.  It operates through
GM North America, GM Europe, GM International Operations, GM South
America, and GM Financial segments.  The Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Detroit, Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal on Shareholder Class Suit Accord Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company is still awaiting court action on an appeal
from an order approving the settlement of a shareholder class suit
filed in Michigan, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017.

In the putative shareholder class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
(Eastern District) on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014 (Shareholder Class
Action), the lead plaintiff, the New York State Teachers'
Retirement System, alleged that GM and several current and former
officers and employees made material misstatements and omissions
relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in
SEC filings and other public statements.

On May 23, 2016 the Eastern District entered a judgment approving
a class-wide settlement of the Shareholder Class Action for US$300
million.  One shareholder has filed an appeal of the decision
approving the settlement.

General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide.  It operates through
GM North America, GM Europe, GM International Operations, GM South
America, and GM Financial segments.  The Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Detroit, Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Still Defends in Airbag Inflators Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several putative class actions against General Motors Company,
among other defendants, in the U.S., Mexico and Canada are still
ongoing, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

Through April 17, 2017, the Company was aware of one putative
class action pending against GM in federal court in the U.S., one
putative class action in Mexico and seven putative class actions
pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada arising out of
allegations that airbag inflators manufactured by Takata are
defective.

In addition, the New Mexico Attorney General has initiated
litigation against Takata and numerous automotive manufacturers,
including GM.

At this early stage of these proceedings, the Company is unable to
provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be
incurred or an estimate of the amounts or range of possible loss.

General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide.  It operates through
GM North America, GM Europe, GM International Operations, GM South
America, and GM Financial segments.  The Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Detroit, Michigan.


GERBER FOOD: 9th Cir. Revives Baby Food False Advertising Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merrit Jones, Esq., of Bryan Cave, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that the Ninth Circuit has revived a proposed class action
against Gerber, saying the mother who sued it for labeling its
sugar-laden baby food as "natural" only had to prove the labels
were misleading, not necessarily false. "Even technically correct
labels can be misleading," the panel wrote in an unpublished order
reversing the district court's dismissal of the putative class
action.

In Bruton v. Gerber Food Products Co., Case No. 5:12-cv-02412-LHK,
the plaintiff alleged that labels on certain Gerber baby food
products included claims about nutrient and sugar content that
were impermissible under Food and Drug Administration regulations
incorporated into California law. She challenged the labels that
describe the food as "excellent source," "good source," "as
healthy as fresh," "no added sugar" and "natural." The products
include a variety of snack foods that allegedly mislead consumers
about being good sources of vitamins C and E, iron and zinc, and
support "healthy growth and development."

The district court denied class certification, and granted summary
judgment for the company in 2013.  The plaintiff appealed, and on
May 3 a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel reversed and remanded,
with one judge dissenting in part and concurring in part. The
panel held the district court erred when it held the class was not
"ascertainable" and that there was a triable issue of fact as to
whether the claims on Gerbert's products in violation of FDA
regulations were likely to mislead the public.

"Bruton's theory of deception does not rely on proving that any of
Gerber's labels were false," the panel wrote, finding she had a
viable claim for deception.

"Rather, Bruton contends that the combination of (a) the presence
of the claims on Gerber's products (in violation of FDA
regulations), and (b) the lack of claims on competitors' products
(in compliance with FDA regulations), made Gerber's labeling
likely to mislead the public into believing that Gerber's products
were of a higher quality than its competitors' products.

"Doubtless, Bruton's theory of deception is unusual. But even
technically correct labels can be misleading."

Despite the panel's ruling, a Gerber representative said the
company expects the case will ultimately be dismissed.

As we have previously reported, in the past several years,
numerous private lawsuits have been filed by consumers,
particularly in California, alleging that marketing and labeling
of food products violate false advertising laws. At first those
lawsuits targeted products labeled or marketed as "Natural" or
"All Natural" when they contained any minimally processed
ingredient. More recent lawsuits have targeted makers of sodas,
fruity beverages, cereals, and other snack foods marketed as
healthy, alleging that they are not healthy due to their high
sugar content.

Such lawsuits alleging violation of state false advertising laws
can subject companies to potential liability of thousands of
dollars per violation. For example, California's false advertising
law, Business and Professions Code Sec. 17500, carries potential
penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, and the state's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Secs. 1750, et seq., provides
minimum statutory penalties of $1,000 per violation, restitution,
and punitive damages. [GN]


GOLD'S GYM: Fails to Pay Fitness Instructors, "Sands" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE SANDS, individually and on 12 behalf of all other
similarly aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. GOLD'S GYM
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Texas Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
BC660124 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 4, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, interest, liquidated damages, and costs and attorneys'
fees, pursuant to Labor Code.

The Defendant offers a variety of fitness classes at each of its
locations including cycling, martial arts, yoga, and Zumba.
Defendant employs Aggrieved Employees to teach these sessions
offered at each location. The Defendant compensated Plaintiff and
Aggrieved Employees at approximately $28 to $40 per hour of
teaching (Class Rate). In addition to the time spent teaching
classes, Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees perform other work
outside the class time including (1) scheduling, planning,
preparing, and rehearsing for each class; (2) arriving prior to
session start time in order to set up the room; (3) selecting
music and compiling soundtracks for the class; (4) straightening
up/ storing equipment and cleaning up the room after the class;
and (5) staying after the session end time to talk with the
students ("Non-Classroom Time"). Defendant has no practice or
policy in place to record time spent on such work and does not
compensate Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for such work. This
work includes, but is not limited to, creating routines and
compiling music for classes, and driving between different clubs.

The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for her non-classroom time.
During the Class Period, Plaintiff did not qualify for any of the
exemptions set forth in IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001 section 1(A)
because she was paid on an hourly and not on a salary basis.
Therefore, Defendant was required to comply with the Wage Order
No. 4-2001 with regard to wage and hour obligations to Plaintiff,
including but not limited to, the obligation to pay her at least
minimum wage for all hours worked. However, throughout the Class
Period, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for her Non Classroom
Time. Defendant had no practice or policy in place to compensate
Plaintiff for any work performed outside of class time. Throughout
the Class Period, Defendant failed to provide any mechanism for
Plaintiff to record her Non-Classroom Time.

The Defendant is a privately owned and operated fitness center
chain with 3 corporate locations in California including Venice,
Long Beach and Pasadena.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          Polina Pecherskaya, Esq.
          Arj Cherniak, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
          1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
          Baltimore. MD 21208
          Telephone: (310)601 6766
          Facsimile: (310)295 2385
          E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
                  ppecherskaya@hammondlawpc.com
                  achemiak@hammondlaw.com


GOPRO INC: Still Defends Calif. Shareholder Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. remains a defendant in a variety of shareholder class
action lawsuits in California, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

Beginning on January 13, 2016, the first of four purported
shareholder class action lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers (the "GoPro Defendants").  Similar
complaints were filed on January 21, 2016, February 4, 2016, and
February 19, 2016.

Each of the complaints purports to bring suit on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded
securities between July 21, 2015 and January 13, 2016 for the
first three complaints and between November 26, 2014 and January
13, 2016 for the last filed complaint.

Each complaint purports to allege that defendants made false and
misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and
prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and each seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, fees and costs.

On April 21, 2016, the court consolidated the complaints and
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the first three
actions (the "Camia Investments Class Action"); the court allowed
the fourth action to proceed separately as to the period November
26, 2014 through July 20, 2015 (the "Majesty Palms Class Action")
and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for that action.

The lead plaintiff in the Majesty Palms Class Action did not file
an amended complaint and voluntarily dismissed the Majesty Palms
Class Action on July 28, 2016.

On September 26, 2016, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Camia Investment Class Action.  That motion was heard
on January 19, 2017 and is pending decision by the court.

On January 25, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of its current and
former directors and executive officers and underwriters of the
Company's IPO ("Defendants").

The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's IPO and alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The suit seeks unspecified
damages and other relief.

A similar complaint was filed on May 13, 2016, and consolidated on
June 7, 2016.  Defendants filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to
the consolidated action.  On July 13, 2016, the court sustained
the demurrer dismissing the complaint with leave to amend the
complaint.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 7,
2016.

Defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on October
28, 2016.  On December 16, 2016, the court overruled the demurrer
with respect to the Section 11 and 15 claims and sustained the
demurrer in part and overruled the demurrer in part with respect
to the Section 12(a)(2) claim.

On November 16, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and Mr. Woodman, its Chairman and
CEO ("Defendants").

The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between
September 19, 2016 and November 4, 2016.  The complaint purports
to allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements
about the Company's business, operations and prospects in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and
costs.

On February 6, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the Company and certain of its officers ("GoPro
Defendants") on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November
8, 2016.

On April 13, 2017, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.  The motion is currently set for hearing in
June 2017.

GoPro, Inc. develops and sells mountable and wearable cameras, and
accessories in the United States and internationally.  It markets
and sells its products through retailers and distributors, as well
as through its Website.  It was formerly known as Woodman Labs,
Inc. and changed its name to GoPro, Inc. in February 2014.  The
Company was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Mateo,
California.


GRUPO AVAL: Still Defends in Constitutional Actions in Colombia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Aval Acciones y Valores S.A. and its subsidiaries continue
to defend themselves in constitutional actions in Colombia,
according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company, its banking subsidiaries, Corficolombiana, Porvenir
and its other subsidiaries are party to collective or class
actions ("acciones populares" or "acciones de grupo,"
respectively).  Collective actions are court actions where an
individual seeks to protect collective rights and prevent
contingent damages, obtain injunctions and damages caused by an
infringement of collective rights of which the following are the
most significant.

All pension and severance fund administrators in Colombia,
including Porvenir, are subject to at least two class actions in
which certain individuals are alleging that the pension and
severance funds administrators have caused damages to their
customers by (1) paying returns earned by the severance and
pension funds below the minimum profitability certified by the
Superintendency of Finance, and (2) making payments to its
customers -- under the scheduled retirement system -- below the
established standards.

Additionally, Porvenir and certain other pension and severance
funds are subject to a constitutional action relating to charging
commissions above the legally established limits for contributions
to mandatory pension funds.  These constitutional actions are
seeking the payment of the alleged damages caused to fund
managers' customers.

"No provisions have been established in connection with these
three constitutional actions because the amount is unquantifiable,
and we consider the probability of loss to be remote," the Company
said.

Banco de Bogota, Banco de Occidente Banco Popular and
Corficolombiana are subject to a constitutional action filed by
certain individuals on behalf of the Department of Valle del Cauca
(Departamento del Valle del Cauca) against several financial
institutions (including Banco de Bogota, Banco de Occidente, Banco
Popular and Corficolombiana) claiming that the Department has paid
interest in a manner prohibited by law, in connection with a
credit facility granted to the Department.

In addition, the plaintiffs are claiming that the defendants did
not pay the alleged real value of the shares of Sociedad Portuaria
de Buenaventura and Empresa de Energia del Pacifico, on a sale
transaction of said shares.  The Company considers the probability
of loss in connection with this constitutional action to be low
(eventual) and, therefore, have not recorded any provision.

Banco AV Villas is subject to constitutional actions brought
against several companies in the financial sector in Colombia in
connection with the recalculation of mortgage interests that
allegedly damaged several mortgage lenders.  The Company believes
that the probability of loss in connection with these
constitutional actions is remote.

Grupo Aval Acciones y Valores S.A. provides a range of financial
services and products to public and private sector customers in
Colombia and Central America.  It operates through Banco Bogota
S.A., Banco de Occidente S.A., Banco Popular S.A., Banco AV Villas
S.A., and Corficolombiana S.A. segments.  The Company was founded
in 1870 and is based in Bogota, Colombia.


HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: "Gumbs" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DR. PAMELA GUMBS, doing business
as: UNITED PHARMACY, A SOLE PROPRIETOR, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
and ED NASRAH doing business as: DANIELS PHARMACY A SOLE
PROPRIETOR, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, the Plaintiffs, v.
HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS INC., AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., CITRON
PHARMA, LLC, and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 17-CV-2084,
was transferred on May 4, 2017 from the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia), to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Northern District of California. The Northern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02042-CMR to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe.

Heritage Pharmaceuticals is a manufacturer of generic
pharmaceuticals based in Eatontown, New Jersey and established in
2006.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel S. Mason, Esq.
          Frederick P. Furth, Esq.
          FURTH SALEM MASON & LI LLP
          101 California St Suite 2710
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 365 9685
          E-mail: FPFURTH@AOL.COM

               - and -

          Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
          Patrick Bradford Clayton, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
          456 Montgomery St 17th Fl
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 788 7210
          E-mail: fscarpulla@zelle.com

               - and -

          George L. Saunders, Esq.
          Terry Rose Saunders, Esq.
          THE SAUNDERS LAW FIRM
          120 North Lasalle St Suite 2000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 444 9656

               - and -

          Quentin L. Kopp, Esq.
          380 West Portal Ave
          San Francisco, CA 94127
          Telephone: (415) 681 5555

Attorneys for Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc.:

          Joseph C. Hansen, Esq.
          Rachel S. Brass, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission St Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 393 8380

Attorneys for Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.:

          Jennifer Briggs Fisher, Esq.
          WAYNE A. MACK, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          Spear Tower
          One Market Plaza Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1127
          Telephone: (415) 957 3226
          E-mail: wamack@duanemorris.com

Attorney for Citron Pharma, LLC

          Christine C. Levin, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          Cira Center
          2929 Arch St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 994 4000
          E-mail: christine.levin@dechert.com

Attorney for Teva Pharmaceuticals, INC.

          Thomas J. Amburgy, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          1633 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506 1802


HERTZ GROUP: "Campos" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alfonso Campos, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, V. Hertz Equipment Rental Corp, Herc Rentals
Inc., The Hertz Corporation, Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. and Does
1 to 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG17858299, (Cal.
Super., April 27, 2017), seeks unpaid premium wages and interest
for failure to authorize or permit meal periods, statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, and
waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for
failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of
employment.  The suit also seeks injunctive relief and other
equitable relief pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Plaintiff worked as a driver for the Defendants' vehicle rental
business.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Vincent C. Granbeiry, Esq.
      Vanessa Kamau, Esq
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 432-0000
      Facsimile: (310) 432-0001


HEWLETT PACKARD: Court Tosses Discount Drugs' Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman entered an order in the
lawsuit styled Discount Drugs of Illinois Inc., the Plaintiff, v.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01298 (N.D. Ill.), striking Plaintiff's motion to
certify class as moot.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on May 5, 2017,
John Doe 1-12 defendants are dismissed without prejudice.
Status hearing set to May 19, 2017 is stricken.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OymKN7sH

Discount Drugs is represented by:

     Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
     BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
     134 N LaSalle Dr # 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: 312-658-5500


HI-SHEAR CORP: "Torres" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armando Wong, in behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hi-Shear Corporation, Lisi Aerospace North
America, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, Defendants, Case BC659251 (Cal.
Super., April 27, 2017) seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
and for the attorney's fees and costs under the California Labor
Code, California Business and Professions Code and applicable Wage
Orders issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission.

The complaint says Defendants failed to provide adequate rest
periods, unpaid vested vacation wages, failed to properly
calculate overtime wages vis-a-vis accurate and complete wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay former employees all earned and
unpaid wages, applicable civil penalties, injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. [BN]

Hi-Shear Corporation is a division of Lisi Aerospace that
manufactures high tensile strength fasteners and structural
components used for the airframe as well as the engine of the
aircraft.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Lavi, Esq., Esq.
     Joshua M. Webster, Esq.
     LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
     8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Telephone: (310) 432-0000
     Facsimile: (310) 432-0001


IMPERIAL PARKING: "Felix" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilner Felix, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Imperial Parking (U.S.), LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 706045/2017 (S.D. Fla., May 4, 2017), seeks to
recover entire unpaid wages, including his unpaid vacation time,
maximum liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and maximum
recovery for violations of New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Plaintiff brings the NYLL Spread of Hours claim on behalf of
himself and a class of other similarly situated current and former
hourly employees of Defendant: 1) who worked for Defendant within
New York State; 2) who were paid an hourly rate equal to the
applicable New York State minimum wage rate or lower; and 3) were
not paid an extra hour of pay for each day that they worked a
spread of hours in excess of 10 hours; during the six year period
prior to the filing of this action, to entry of judgment in this
case.

Imperial Parking offers parking services. The company was
incorporated in 1989 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Imperial Parking (U.S.), Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Imperial
Parking Corp.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740 1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740 2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


INFIGEN'S CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Currandooley Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Thrower, writing for Goulburn Post, reports that a
Victorian legal firm has mounted a class action over the
Currandooley fire which burnt out almost 3400 hectares near Tarago
in January.

Maddens Lawyers of Warrnambool will represent 33 individuals
owning 22 properties in the NSW Supreme Court action.

The firm's class action principal, Brendan Pendergast, said the
action alleged that Infigen Energy "was aware of the risk that a
bird strike to its high voltage power line could cause a fire."
Further, it was aware of previous similar incidents but "failed to
take appropriate steps to address the risk until after the fire."

Infigen has denied any liability for the outbreak. A spokesman
said the company maintained "appropriate insurance."

The blaze started at Infigen's Capital Wind Farm off Taylors Creek
Road, near Tarago on the morning of January 17.  It tore through
3384ha, fanned by strong winds and fuelled by high heat and dry
conditions.

It destroyed a house at Mount Fairy, 80ha of crops, eight sheds,
10.5km of windbreaks, cattle yards, stock water tanks and over
150km of fencing, Local Land Service figures revealed.  A total
230 animals died and 110 were destroyed on welfare grounds.

A NSW Rural Fire Service investigation found that a bird struck a
high-voltage power line transferring electricity from Infigen's
Woodlawn wind farm to a substation at the Capital wind farm.  The
bird caught fire, dropped to the ground, sparking the blaze.

Mount Fairy couple Fred Kuhn and Liz Stewart are the lead
plaintiffs.  More than 40 of Mr Kuhn's 150 sheep had to be put
down after the outbreak.

Mr Pendergast claimed Infigen "failed to exercise reasonable care
and to address this very serious issue until after the fire."

"We are saying that the line design is inappropriate. Its
configuration should be such that when a bird lands on an
energised conductor it doesn't cause a short circuit and for a
bird to ignite," he said.

"In most cases the birds would simply die a horrible death but in
under the right climatic conditions, it can cause a fire . . . We
say this is foreseeable."

The action also claims that Infigen only mitigated fire risk by
slashing grass beneath power poles in the days following.  It had
also built 12-metre diameter gravel 'pads' at their base for the
same reason.

"This is not a theory of a few disgruntled property owners.  They
are the steps the company took after the fire," Mr Pendergast
said.

In February the company acknowledged the actions but said it was
about "improving processes" and reducing the risk of birds
catching fire.

While Maddens is seeking damages for 22 large and small
properties, he says there are another six for which he's awaiting
instructions from owners.

Mr Pendergast said total damage across the fire ground could be as
high as $20 million. He has not identified a compensation amount
for the class action.

However an Infigen spokesman no information had been provided to
support the $20m figure.

"Nor has the amount of the loss and damage claimed been quantified
in the statement of claim," the spokesman said.

Mr Pendergast attended several Tarago community meetings after the
fire.

Writs for the class action were issued in the NSW Supreme Court on
May 2 and the company was served with the notice on May 3.

A directions hearing is expected to be held in several months.

Meantime, police said a coronial brief on the fire was still being
prepared.

Mr Pendergast said Maddens Lawyers would seek leave to appear if a
coronial inquiry was held.

His firm has also mounted a class action over the Carwoola fire,
east of Queanbeyan, which destroyed 3100ha in February.  It was
allegedly started by a property owner operating an angle grinder.
[GN]


INSULET CORP: Securities Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on May 3 disclosed
that a class action complaint filed against Insulet Corporation
(PODD) in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (the "Court") survived the motion to dismiss.  The
complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Insulet
securities between May 7, 2013 and April 30, 2015, for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Insulet's
officers and directors.  Insulet, a medical device company,
develops, manufactures, and sells insulin delivery systems for
people with insulin-dependent diabetes in the United States and
internationally.  In 2013, Insulet began selling a new version of
its infusion system known as the OmniPod Eros ("Eros").

Insulet Accused of Concealing Problems with its Infusion System

According to the complaint, on May 7, 2013, Insulet's former Chief
Executive Officer, Duane DeSisto, touted the company's launch of
its Eros system, noting that customers' initial feedback was
excellent, that Insulet had transitioned all of its new customers
to the new Eros, and that as a result, Insulet's growth was
surging in the U.S. and overseas.  The complaint alleges that in
reality, Insulet was experiencing significant manufacturing and
quality issues with Eros including defective needle and alarm
mechanisms.  Despite these ongoing setbacks, Insulet officials
repeatedly assured investors that any problems were unexceptional
and had been fully addressed and corrected.

On January 7, 2015, Insulet disclosed that it was appointing six
new executives from outside the company into key leadership
positions and that its fourth quarter 2014 revenue would be $5 to
$8 million less than the company's recent guidance due to reduced
demand for Eros product from Insulet's distributors.  Insulet's
Chief Executive Officer, Patrick Sullivan, subsequently admitted
that Eros had experienced serious problems and that the company's
new patient growth in the U.S. had actually been declining rather
than increasing over the past year.  Insulet had been masking the
deterioration in its core business by manipulating the use of the
"new patient stats" metric, which were inflated and misleading. As
news of Insulet's troubles reached the market, its stock price
declined by approximately 30% to close at $26.97 per share on
May 1, 2015.  On March 17, 2017, the Court denied Insulet's motion
to dismiss the securities class action complaint.

Insulet Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law.  The 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. [GN]


INTER-CON SECURITY: Faces "Powers" Wage-and-Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
RICHARD POWERS and EUGENE D. OLIVER, as individuals and on behalf
of all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. INTER-CON
SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC, a California corporation, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC660133 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 4, 2017), seeks compensation for work performed
and monies due themselves and the Plaintiff Class.

The case arises out of the failure to pay all compensation,
failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay all
wages, failure to pay overtime and/or double-time, "off the
clock" work, failure to pay wages upon ending of employment, and
failure to keep accurate payroll records; to certain California
employees of the Defendant. The proposed Plaintiff Class consists
of all current and former non-exempt hourly employees including,
but not limited to, security officers and related positions
employed by Defendant in the state of California from four years
prior to the date of the filing of this lawsuit through judgment
in this action.

Inter-Con Security provides physical security solutions. Its
services include program management, security consulting and
training.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Na'Shaun L. Neal, Esq.
          Treana L. Allen, Esq.
          Keren B. Serrano, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 East Ocean Blvd, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  nneal@mahoney-law.net
                  tallen@mahoney-law.net
                  kserrano@mahoney-law.net


INVENTURE FOODS: "Robinson" Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
John Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Inventure Foods, Inc., Terry McDaniel and
Steve Weinberger, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01258 (D. Ariz.,
April 27, 2017), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and
other costs and such other and further relief under the Securities
and Exchange Act.

Inventure Foods, Inc. manufactures and markets healthy/natural and
indulgent specialty snack food products in the United States and
internationally. It operates in two segments, Frozen Products and
Snack Products.

Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that the company lacked
adequate internal controls over accounting and financial
reporting, that the company's statements of operations in its
fiscal year 2015 results press release contained incorrect
figures. On this news, Inventure's share price fell $0.13, or
2.58%, to close at $4.91 on March 16, 2017. The stock price
continued to decline in the following trading days, falling $0.48
per share (9.7%) on March 20, 2017, and $0.41 per share (9.2%) on
March 21, 2017, to close at $4.02 per share on March 21, 2017.

Johnson owns shares of Investure.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Susan Martin, Esq.
      Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONNETT, PLLC
      1850 N. Central Ave. Suite 2010
      Phoenix, AZ 85004
      Telephone: (602) 240-6900
      Email: smartin@martinbonnett.com
             jkroll@martinbonnett.com


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

              - and -

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


K12 INC: Consolidated Securities Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
K12 Inc. continues to defend itself in consolidated securities
class action litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On July 20, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit captioned
Babulal Tarapara v. K12 Inc. et al was filed against the Company,
two of its officers and one of its former officers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
Case No. 3:16-cv-04069 ("Tarapara Case").

The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
November 7, 2013 and October 27, 2015, inclusive, and alleges
violations by the Company and the individual defendants of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange
Act, and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.  The complaint sought unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

Additionally, on September 15, 2016, a second securities class
action lawsuit captioned Gil Tuinenburg v. K12 Inc. et al was
filed against the Company, two of its officers and one of its
former officers in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Case No. 3:16-cv-05305
("Tuinenburg Case").

On October 6, 2016, the Court consolidated the Tarapara Case and
the Tuinenburg Case, appointed Babul Tarapara and Mark Beadle as
lead plaintiffs, and recaptioned the matter as In Re K12 Inc.
Securities Litigation.

On December 2, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint against us.  The amended complaint named an additional
former officer as a defendant and specified a class period start
date of October 10, 2013.  The amended complaint alleges
materially false or misleading statements and omissions regarding
the decision of the Agora Cyber Charter School not to renew its
managed public school agreement with us, student academic and
Scantron results, and other statements regarding student academic
performance and K12's academic services and offerings.

On January 30, 2017, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 1, 2017.

On March 31, 2017, the Company filed its response to the lead
plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss.  A hearing on the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint was held on April 19,
2017.

The Company intends to continue to defend vigorously against each
and every allegation and claim set forth in the amended complaint.

K12 Inc., a technology-based education company, offers proprietary
curriculum, software systems, and educational services to
facilitate individualized learning for students primarily in
kindergarten through 12th grade.  It manages virtual and blended
public schools.  The Company also offers curriculum and technology
solutions; full-time virtual and blended programs, semester
courses, and supplemental educational products; teacher training,
teaching, and other support services to public schools, school
districts, private schools, charter schools, early childhood
learning centers, and corporate partners.  In addition, it
provides FuelEd suite of offerings, such as K12 curriculum, FuelEd
online courses, and FuelEd anywhere learning systems; and PEAK, a
proprietary software system designed to manage in a single-user
interface, multiple, and independent online school-based
functions.  Further, the company operates online private schools,
including The K12 International Academy, the George Washington
University Online High School, and the Keystone School.
Additionally, it provides access to the online lessons and
curriculum through proprietary learning management system;
learning kits; student computers; and management, technology, and
educational services.  The Company sells individual online courses
directly to families who desire to educate their children outside
of the traditional public school system or to supplement their
child's existing public school education without the aid of an
online teacher.  It serves customers in the United States and
internationally.  K12 Inc. was founded in 2000 and is
headquartered in Herndon, Virginia.


KBR INC: Securities Case Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc. has received preliminary court approval on April 6, 2017
for the settlement of a securities class action suit, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

Lead plaintiffs, Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and
IBEW Local 58/NECA Funds, sought class action status on behalf of
the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its former
chief executive officer, its previous two former chief financial
officers, and its former chief accounting officer, arising out of
the restatement of the Company's 2013 annual financial statements,
and seek undisclosed damages.

The Company reached an agreement to settle this case as of January
11, 2017 and accrued the proposed settlement amount as of December
31, 2016 in "other current liabilities" on its consolidated
balance sheets, net of insurance proceeds, which did not have a
material impact to its financial statements.

On April 6, 2017, the Company received preliminary Court approval
for the settlement.

KBR, Inc. provides professional services and technologies across
the asset and program life-cycle within the government services
and hydrocarbons industries worldwide.  The Company operates
through three segments: Government Services, Technology &
Consulting, and Engineering & Construction.  KBR, Inc. was founded
in 1901 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


KELLY SERVICES: Settles FCRA Background Check Case for $6.7MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Bob Mather at Preemploy,
Kelly Services has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit for
allegedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
As mentioned in our white paper -- Top 3 FCRA lawsuits and how to
prevent them -- the background check release form is a top target
for class action lawyers looking to capitalize on big paydays.

According to topclassactions.com, plaintiffs allege that between
July 18, 2012 and January 23, 2014, Kelly Services provided its
employees and job applicants with a FCRA disclosure form to
conduct background checks that also contained a liability release.
Unfortunately, this is in clear violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA).

The Alleged Improper Sentences

The first allegedly improper sentence stated, "To the fullest
extent permitted by law, I release Kelly, its employees, agents,
successor and assigns, from any and all claims, actions or
liability whatsoever that are in any way related to the
procurement of a consumer report about me, or any subsequent
investigation(s) of my background or personal history."

The second allegedly improper sentence stated: "I understand that
this Authorization is not a contract for continued employment and
does not alter the at-will nature of my employment or offered
employment."

Plaintiffs claimed that the inclusion by Kelly Services of the
waiver and disclaimer on the disclosure form violated the FCRA's
stand-alone disclosure requirement.

Kelly Services denies the allegations but has agreed to settle the
FCRA class action lawsuit to avoid the risk and expense of ongoing
litigation. Approximately 221,216 class members are eligible for
benefits from the Kelly Services class action settlement.

The Settlement Agreement

Under the settlement agreement, Kelly Services will provide
plaintiffs and the proposed class with several benefits, with the
primary one being a settlement fund on Kelly Services' part of
$6,749,000, none of which will revert to Kelly Services. Of this
fund, it is contemplated that:

   -- Up to 33% (approximately $2,250,000) will go to class
counsel for fees
   -- Administrative expenses (about $330,000)
   -- Incentive awards to Plaintiffs ($2,500 each) will also be
deducted from the fund
   -- After all these deductions, the payout, assuming all 220,000
potential class members make a claim, will be about $41
for an Adjudicated Ineligible class member and about $14 for those
who received a favorable rating

In addition to providing cash benefits to eligible Class Members,
Kelly Services has also agreed not to include a liability release
on its FCRA disclosure form for five years.

If you're interested in learning more about how your background
check policy can remain compliant with FCRA regulations, contact
us for a free consultation to see how Pre-employ can help you
steer clear of class action lawsuits. [GN]


KENNEDY RIG: "Andrio" Suit Asserts FLSA Breach
----------------------------------------------
Jose Andrio, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kennedy Rig Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01194 (S.D. Tex., April 17, 2017)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant has a policy, enforced at all of its locations
throughout the United States, of denying Plaintiff and putative
class members compensation at time and a half and paying only
straight time for hours worked above 40 per week.

Plaintiff Jose Andrio worked for Kennedy Rig Services, LLC as a
Welder.

Kennedy Rig Services, LLC (trade name Kennedy Fabricating) is in
the Machine Moving and Rigging business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
   The Foley Law Firm
   3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
   Houston, TX 77054
   Tel: (832) 778-8182
   Fax: (832) 778-8353
   Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com



KIMS NAILS: Faces "Lazo" Suit in Southern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kims Nails at York
Avenue, Inc.  The case is titled as Maria Carmelina Tamay Lazo,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Kims Nails at York Avenue, Inc., doing business as:
Kims Nail Salon; Vera Nail & Salon, Inc., doing business as: Kims
Nail Salon; Margaret Kim; and Jung Im Kim, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-03302 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017).

Kims Nails offers manicures and pedicures services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


LG DISPLAY: Settled with Plaintiffs in LCD Panel Suit at Apr. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that as of April 27, 2017, it has reached
settlement with each of the plaintiffs in multi-district
litigation proceedings, which are class action lawsuits in the
United States that were transferred to the Northern District of
California.

After the commencement of the U.S. Department of Justice
investigation, a number of class action complaints were filed
against LG Display, LG Display America and other TFT-LCD panel
manufacturers in the United States and Canada alleging violation
of respective antitrust laws and related laws.  In a series of
decisions in 2007 and 2008, the class action lawsuits in the
United States were transferred to the Northern District of
California for pretrial proceedings.

In March 2010, the federal district court granted the class
certification motion filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
and granted in part and denied in part the class certification
motion filed by the direct purchaser plaintiffs.

In January 2011, 78 entities (including groups of affiliated
entities) submitted requests for exclusion from the direct
purchaser class.

In April 2012, ten entities (including groups of affiliated
companies) submitted requests for exclusion from the indirect
purchaser class.  In addition, since 2010, the attorneys general
of Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington,
West Virginia and Wisconsin filed complaints against LG Display,
alleging similar antitrust violations as alleged in the MDL
Proceedings.

In June 2011, LG Display reached a settlement with the direct
purchaser class, which the federal district court approved in
December 2011.

In July 2012, LG Display reached a settlement with the indirect
purchaser class plaintiffs and with the state attorneys general of
Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New York, West
Virginia and Wisconsin, which was approved by the federal district
court in April 2013 and, in the case of the state attorneys
general actions, by their respective state governments.  LG
Display has since reached settlement with each of the attorneys
general that had filed action.

In addition, in relation to the MDL Proceedings, in 2009, ATS
Claim, LLC (assignee of Ricoh Electronics, Inc.), AT&T Corp. and
its affiliates, Motorola Mobility, Inc. ("Motorola"), and
Electrograph Technologies Corp. and its subsidiary filed separate
claims in the United States, and all of the actions were
subsequently consolidated into the MDL Proceedings.

In 2010, TracFone Wireless Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc. and its
affiliates, Target Corp., Sears, Roebuck and Co., Kmart Corp., Old
Comp Inc., Good Guys, Inc., RadioShack Corp., Newegg Inc., Costco
Wholesale Corp., Sony Electronics, Inc. and its affiliate, SB
Liquidation Trust and the trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc.
Liquidation Trust filed separate claims in the United States.

In 2011, the AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust on behalf of All
American Semiconductor Inc., CompuCom Systems, Inc., Interbond
Corporation of America, Jaco Electronics, Inc., Office Depot,
Inc., P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, MARTA
Cooperative of America, Inc., ABC Appliance, Inc., Schultze Agency
Services, LLC on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and its affiliate,
T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., Tech Data Corporation and its affiliate
filed similar claims in the United States.

In 2012, ViewSonic Corp., NECO Alliance LLC, Rockwell Automation
LLC, Proview Technology Inc. and its affiliates filed similar
claims.

In November 2013, Acer America Corporation and its affiliates
filed similar claims in the United States.

The cases were transferred to the MDL Proceedings for pretrial
proceedings.

In December 2012, Sony Europe Limited and its affiliate filed
similar claims in the High Court of Justice in the United Kingdom.

In July 2015, LG Display was dismissed from the Motorola case and
as of April 27, 2017, LG Display has reached settlement with each
of the other plaintiffs mentioned.

LG Display Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells thin-film transistor
liquid crystal display and organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
technology-based display panels in the Republic of Korea, the
Americas, Europe, Asia, and internationally.  It offers various
display panels primarily for use in televisions, notebook
computers, desktop monitors, tablet computers, and mobile devices.
The Company also provides panels for industrial and other
applications, including entertainment systems, automotive
displays, portable navigation devices, and medical diagnostic
equipment. It serves end-brand customers and their system
integrators.  The Company was formerly known as LG.Philips LCD
Co., Ltd. and changed its name to LG Display Co., Ltd. in February
2008.  LG Display Co., Ltd. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.


LG DISPLAY: Class Action Pact with 3 Canadian Provinces Reached
---------------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. has reached settlement with the Canadian
provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec with regards to
class action complaints filed in 2007, according to the Company's
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In 2007, class action complaints were filed against LG Display and
other TFT-LCD manufacturers in the Canadian provinces of British
Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class in May
2011.

In April 2014, the Company appealed the class certification
decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which upheld the
lower court's decision in an order dated December 2015.

In November 2016, LG Display reached settlement with the provinces
of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.

LG Display Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells thin-film transistor
liquid crystal display and organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
technology-based display panels in the Republic of Korea, the
Americas, Europe, Asia, and internationally.  It offers various
display panels primarily for use in televisions, notebook
computers, desktop monitors, tablet computers, and mobile devices.
The Company also provides panels for industrial and other
applications, including entertainment systems, automotive
displays, portable navigation devices, and medical diagnostic
equipment. It serves end-brand customers and their system
integrators.  The Company was formerly known as LG.Philips LCD
Co., Ltd. and changed its name to LG Display Co., Ltd. in February
2008.  LG Display Co., Ltd. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.


LG DISPLAY: Hatzlacha Class Action Case in Israel Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. continues to defend itself in a class action
complaint filed in December 2013 by Hatzlacha, a consumer
organization, on behalf of Israeli consumers in the Central
District in Israel, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

In June 2015, LG Display and other defendants filed a motion to
cancel leave to serve process, which was denied in March 2016.

In April 2016, LG Display and other defendants appealed this
decision to the District Court for the Central District.

In December 2016, the District Court for the Central District
granted the appeal, holding that the leave to serve the class
action on LG Display (and the other defendants) outside the
jurisdiction of Israel is revoked.

In January 2017, Hatzlacha filed a motion for leave to appeal to
the Supreme Court.

LG Display Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells thin-film transistor
liquid crystal display and organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
technology-based display panels in the Republic of Korea, the
Americas, Europe, Asia, and internationally.  It offers various
display panels primarily for use in televisions, notebook
computers, desktop monitors, tablet computers, and mobile devices.
The Company also provides panels for industrial and other
applications, including entertainment systems, automotive
displays, portable navigation devices, and medical diagnostic
equipment. It serves end-brand customers and their system
integrators.  The Company was formerly known as LG.Philips LCD
Co., Ltd. and changed its name to LG Display Co., Ltd. in February
2008.  LG Display Co., Ltd. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.


LG DISPLAY: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
LG Display Co., Ltd. is awaiting court action on its request to
dismiss a class action civil lawsuit filed against the Company,
among others, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

In September 2016, the lawsuit was filed against the Company, LG
Display America, Inc. and others in the District Court, alleging
participation in an agreement with other companies not to solicit
one another's employees.

In January 2017, LG Display filed a motion to dismiss and a motion
for sanctions against the plaintiffs.

LG Display Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells thin-film transistor
liquid crystal display and organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
technology-based display panels in the Republic of Korea, the
Americas, Europe, Asia, and internationally.  It offers various
display panels primarily for use in televisions, notebook
computers, desktop monitors, tablet computers, and mobile devices.
The Company also provides panels for industrial and other
applications, including entertainment systems, automotive
displays, portable navigation devices, and medical diagnostic
equipment. It serves end-brand customers and their system
integrators.  The Company was formerly known as LG.Philips LCD
Co., Ltd. and changed its name to LG Display Co., Ltd. in February
2008.  LG Display Co., Ltd. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.


LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Has Deal to Resolve Alabama Cases vs. Units
-------------------------------------------------------------
Agreements to resolve various actions in Alabama, including two
putative class action lawsuits, have been reached as it pertains
to entities affiliated with LifePoint Health, Inc., according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The Company and/or Vaughan Regional Medical Center and several of
the Company's subsidiaries, as well as Dr. Seydi V. Aksut and
certain parties unaffiliated with the Company, are named
defendants in 26 individual lawsuits filed since December 2014,
and two putative class action lawsuits, all filed in the Circuit
Court of Dallas County, Alabama.  As more fully described below,
agreements to resolve all of these matters have been reached as it
pertains to entities affiliated with the Company.

The lawsuits in Alabama alleged that patients at Vaughan Regional
Medical Center underwent improper interventional cardiology
procedures.  One of the putative class action lawsuits, filed on
November 21, 2014, sought certification of a class consisting of
all Alabama citizens who underwent an invasive cardiology
procedure at any Company-owned Alabama hospital and who received
notice regarding the medical necessity of that procedure.

The other putative class action lawsuit, filed on February 6, 2015
also in the Circuit Court for Dallas County, Alabama, sought
certification of a class of individuals that underwent an
interventional cardiology procedure that was not medically
necessary and performed by Dr. Aksut.  This second action
asserted, among other claims, claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), which, if
successful, would result in the awarding of treble damages for any
injury resulting from the RICO violation and attorneys' fees.

In March 2015, the Company removed the second class action to the
U.S. District Court in Mobile, Alabama.  By Order dated March 28,
2016, the United States District Court Judge dismissed with
prejudice the RICO claim and refused to exercise jurisdiction over
the remaining state law claims.

In a filing made April 7, 2016 the plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's Order to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit.  By opinion dated March 1, 2017, the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered this action be remanded
back to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Alabama for additional proceedings.  Following this order, Dr.
Aksut and others filed a petition for rehearing en banc by the
Eleventh Circuit.  While this petition was pending, joint motions
to dismiss this putative class action were filed by plaintiff's
counsel as to the Company's affiliated entities.

In February 2017, the Company settled the claims against it, its
subsidiaries and Vaughan Regional Medical Center with the
individual plaintiffs and claimants, which included an agreement
to dismiss the putative class action pending in the Eleventh
Circuit.  The Company has also reached an agreement in principle
to settle the first putative class action lawsuit.

As of April 28, 2017 (the date of the Form 10-Q filing), the
Company believes that all such settlements will be accomplished
within the amounts previously accrued for loss contingencies for
cardiology-related lawsuits.  However, there can be no assurance
that the Company will complete any or all of these settlements,
that definitive settlement documentation will be agreed upon by
all parties, that the courts overseeing the putative class action
lawsuits will approve those settlements, or that the final
resolution will not materially exceed the amounts previously
accrued.

LifePoint Health, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates community hospitals, regional health systems, physician
practices, outpatient centers, and post-acute facilities in the
United States.  Its hospitals offer a range of medical and
surgical services, such as general surgery, internal medicine,
obstetrics, emergency room care, radiology, oncology, diagnostic
care, coronary care, rehabilitation, and pediatric services, as
well as specialized services, including open-heart surgery,
skilled nursing, psychiatric care, and neuro-surgery.  The
Company's hospitals also provide various outpatient services
comprising same-day surgery, laboratory, X-ray, respiratory
therapy, imaging, sports medicine, and lithotripsy.  In addition,
it owns and operates schools of nursing and other allied health
professions.  The Company was formerly known as LifePoint
Hospitals, Inc. and changed its name to LifePoint Health, Inc. in
May 2015.  LifePoint Health, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is based
in Brentwood, Tennessee.


LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Cardiology Patient Claims in W.Va. Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Despite entering into settlements to resolve lawsuits in West
Virginia in early 2017, LifePoint Health, Inc. continues to face
claims filed by cardiology patients at Raleigh General Hospital,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

The Company and two of its subsidiaries, including Raleigh General
Hospital, as well as Dr. Kenneth Glaser, have been named in 82
individual lawsuits filed in the circuit court of Raleigh County,
West Virginia.  Additionally, three patients had notified Raleigh
General of their claims and intent to file a lawsuit.  These
lawsuits and claims alleged that patients at Raleigh General
Hospital underwent unnecessary interventional cardiology
procedures.

In January 2017, all parties to these lawsuits and claims entered
into settlement agreements settling all claims against the
Company, its subsidiaries, Raleigh General Hospital and Dr.
Glaser.

Following these settlements, two additional lawsuits were filed
against the same parties alleging the same claims.  These two
lawsuits were settled in March 2017. All of these settlements were
accomplished within the amounts previously accrued for loss
contingencies for cardiology-related lawsuits.

In addition, in February 2017, the Company received a notice of
claim with respect to a putative class action lawsuit in the
Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia against it, two of
its subsidiaries, Raleigh General Hospital and Dr. Glaser,
alleging that patients at Raleigh General Hospital underwent
medically unnecessary interventional cardiology procedures and
seeking to certify a class of such patients.  The new claims seek
compensatory and punitive damages, costs, attorneys' fees and
other available damages.

Additional claims, including claims involving patients to whom the
Company did not send notice, have been threatened and may be
asserted against the Company or the hospital.  Any present or
future claims that are ultimately successful could result in the
Company and/or the hospitals being found liable.  Such liability
could be material.

LifePoint Health, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates community hospitals, regional health systems, physician
practices, outpatient centers, and post-acute facilities in the
United States.  Its hospitals offer a range of medical and
surgical services, such as general surgery, internal medicine,
obstetrics, emergency room care, radiology, oncology, diagnostic
care, coronary care, rehabilitation, and pediatric services, as
well as specialized services, including open-heart surgery,
skilled nursing, psychiatric care, and neuro-surgery.  The
Company's hospitals also provide various outpatient services
comprising same-day surgery, laboratory, X-ray, respiratory
therapy, imaging, sports medicine, and lithotripsy.  In addition,
it owns and operates schools of nursing and other allied health
professions.  The Company was formerly known as LifePoint
Hospitals, Inc. and changed its name to LifePoint Health, Inc. in
May 2015.  LifePoint Health, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is based
in Brentwood, Tennessee.


LIONBRIDGE TECH: Laborers' Fund Disputes Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------
Laborers' Local #231 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rory J. Cowan, Edward
A. Blechschmidt, Michael G. Dallas, Guy L. De Chazal, Susan Jane
Kantor, Paul A. Kavanaugh, Jack Noonan, James A. Quella, Claude P.
Sheer, H.I.G. Capital L.L.C., LBT Acquisition, Inc., LBT Merger
Sub, Inc. and Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00478, (D. Del., April 27, 2017), seeks damages sustained,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable
attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Lionbridge and an affiliate of private equity firm H.I.G. Capital
L.L.C. engaged in a merger in which Lionbridge stockholders
received $5.75 per share in cash and Lionbridge became a wholly
owned subsidiary of HIG.

The merger agreement values the Company at about $356 million. In
advocating the merger, the defendants espoused financial
projections that completely ignored concrete business plans and a
valuation of the company that was based on those projections which
analysts estimate at close to a billion.

Lionbridge provides translation and localization, digital
marketing, global content management and application testing
services to the world's top brands.

Rory J. Cowan served as CEO of Lionbridge during the merger.

Laborers' Local #231 Pension Fund owned 4,170 shares of Lionbridge
common stock before the Merger closed.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 231-1058

            - and -

      Christopher H. Lyons, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 244-2203

            - and -

      Patrick J. O'Hara, Esq.
      CAVANAGH & O'HARA
      2319 West Jefferson Street
      Springfield, IL 62702
      Tel: (217) 544-1771


LYFT INC: Gaussoin Appeals Order in "Cotter" Suit to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Christine Gaussoin filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No.
3:13-cv-04065-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft,
Inc., Case No. 17-15692, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 4,
2017, the District Court gave on March 28, 2017, final approval to
a $27 million settlement between ride-hail app Lyft and its
drivers, who claimed they were classified as independent
contractors so Lyft could skirt minimum wage laws.

Objector James Page previously filed an appeal in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is captioned as Patrick Cotter, et al. v.
Lyft, Inc., Case No. 17-15648.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by May 10, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on June 9, 2017;

   -- Appellant Christine Gaussoin's opening brief is due on
      July 19, 2017;

   -- Appellees Patrick Cotter, Jeffrey Knudtson, Lyft, Inc. and
      Alejandra Maciel's answering brief is due on August 18,
      2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Objector-Appellant CHRISTINE GAUSSOIN is represented by:

          Michael F. Creamer, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL CREAMER
          5375 Industrial Drive
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (714) 901-8504

Plaintiffs-Appellees PATRICK COTTER, ALEJANDRA MACIEL and JEFFREY
KNUDTSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Matthew David Carlson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          466 Geary Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail:  mcarlson@llrlaw.com

               - and -

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

Defendant-Appellee LYFT, INC., is represented by:

          Simona Agnolucci, Esq.
          R. James Slaughter, Esq.
          KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          E-mail: sagnolucci@keker.com
                  rslaughter@kvn.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. McInerney, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: tmm@ogletreedeakins.com


MACY'S CREDIT: "Clark" Sues Over TCPA Violations in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Macy's Credit and Customer Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00692-GAP-TBS (M.D. Fla., April 17,
2017) seeks to stop Defendant from calling Plaintiff's cellular
phone for an alleged debt in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Practices Act.

Defendant intentionally harassed and abused Plaintiff on numerous
occasions by calling several times during one day and on back to
back days, with such frequency as can reasonably be expected to
harass, says the complaint.

Macy's Credit and Customer Services Inc. provides credit card
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
   Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
   The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC
   210-A South MacDill Avenue
   Tampa, FL 33609
   Tel: (813) 500-1500
   Fax: (813) 435-2369
   Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
          Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


MAIBEC INC: Stern Appeals From D.N.J. Decision to Third Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ilene Stern and Melissa McCaffrey filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Ilene Stern, et al. v. Maibec
Inc., Case No. 3-11-cv-03951, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 19,
2017, the Hon. Peter G. Sheridan entered an order:

   a. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   b. granting Defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony of
      Plaintiffs' expert Mr. Dean Rutila;

   c. denying Plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert testimony of
      Defendant's expert Dr. Barry Goodell;

   d. granting Plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert testimony of
      Defendant's expert Mr. Jan Kalas; and

   e. denying Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiffs' new
      arguments and documents submitted in reply on motion for
      class certification or in the alternative for permission to
      file sur-reply.

The appellate case is captioned as Ilene Stern, et al. v. Maibec
Inc., Case No. 17-8011, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner ILENE STERN, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL
OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Susana Cruz-Hodge, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0211
          E-mail: scruzhodge@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Benjamin D. Elga, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          16 Court Street, Suite 1012
          Brooklyn, NY 11241
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: belga@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard
          Suite 1600, Encino Plaza
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
          E-mail: jmann@baronbudd.com

Plaintiffs-Petitioners ILENE STERN, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL
OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, and MELISSA MCCAFFREY are represented
by:

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0211
                  jdepalma@litedepalma.com

Defendant-Respondent MAIBEC INC. is represented by:

          Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
          Caroline E. Oks, Esq.
          Christopher Walsh, Esq.
          GIBBONS PC
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 596-4827
          Facsimile: (973) 639-6295
          E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com
                  coks@gibbonslaw.com
                  cwalsh@gibbonslaw.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces "Hartley" Suit Over TCPA Violations in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hartley, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00770-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal., April 17, 2017) seeks
damages and injunctive relief resulting from the illegal actions
of Defendant in negligently and/or intentionally contacting
Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Complaint said: "In or around January 2017, Defendant started
calling Plaintiff's cellular telephone ending in 3472 regarding
marketing for Marriott vacations or rewards."

Plaintiff did not give prior express consent for Defendant to call
him.

Defendant Marriott owns and operates a chain of over 3,000 hotels
in North America, including in all 50 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
   Veronica McKnight, Esq.
   Hyde & Swigart
   221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
   San Diego, CA 92108
   Tel: (619) 233-7770
   Fax: (619) 297-1022
   Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
          bonnie@westcoastlitigation.com

        - and -

   Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
   Kazerouni Law Group, APC
   245 Fischer Avenue
   Costa Mesa, CA 92626
   Tel: (800) 400-6808
   Fax: (800) 520-5523
   Email: ak@kazlg.com


MERIDIAN CARE: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Johnson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Meridian Care, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-01301 (S.D. Tex., April 27, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
with damages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Meridian provides home care for individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities where Plaintiff was employed as a
direct care provider.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      Bridget Davidson, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


METALLINE FIRE: Faces "Castro" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metalline Fire Door
Co., Inc.  The case is captioned as Elvis Israel Guerrero Castro,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Metalline Fire Door Co., Inc., William Rodriguez,
Individually, an Lydia Rodriguez, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03322 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017).

Metalline Fire manufactures metal fire doors, screws, bolts, nuts,
washers, and springs.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Eric Hilton Sues Over Debt Collection Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERIC HILTON, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC.; ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC.; and LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL R. STILLMAN, P.C., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-11366-VAR-
MKM (E.D. Mich., April 28, 2017), alleges that Defendant Midland
Funding, acting through Midland Credit
Management, and on behalf of Encore Capital Group, Inc., violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in impermissibly causing
Stillman Law Office to file a debt collection lawsuit in state
court against Plaintiff that was time barred.

Midland Funding LLC is engaged in the business of taking title to
chargedoff consumer debts, including credit card, auto deficiency
and telecom receivables purchased from national financial
institutions, major retail credit corporations, telecom companies
and resellers of such portfolios.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
     WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
     350 S. Northwest HWY, Ste. 300
     Park Ridge, IL 60068
     Phone: (847) 701-5290
     E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal

        - and -

     John A. Evancek, Esq.
     KELLEY & EVANCHECK PC
     43695 Michigan Ave.
     Canton, MI 48188
     Phone: (734) 397-4540
     E-mail: john@kelawpc.com


MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Mellon" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc.  The case is captioned as Kathleen Mellon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02695 (E.D.N.Y. May 4, 2017).

Monarch Recovery, an accounts receivable management company,
provides financial recovery solutions. It offers collection and
payment.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Caruso" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as James Caruso,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02710 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017).

Monarch Recovery, an accounts receivable management company,
provides financial recovery solutions. It offers collection and
payment.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Suit Concluded at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action filed against Nabors Industries Ltd.,
et al., in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has been
concluded as of March 31, 2017, after the court has denied the
plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On July 30, 2014, the Company and Nabors Red Lion Limited ("Red
Lion"), along with C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("C&J Energy") and
its board of directors, were sued in a putative shareholder class
action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(the "Court of Chancery").  The plaintiff alleges that the members
of the C&J Energy board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the merger of the Company's Completion &
Production Services business with C&J Energy, and that Red Lion
and C&J Energy aided and abetted these alleged breaches.

The plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with
or consummating the Merger and the C&J Energy stockholder meeting
for approval of the Merger and, to the extent that the Merger was
completed before any relief was granted, to have the Merger
rescinded.

On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of
Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on
November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J
Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period
alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling
stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii)
preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder
meeting until it complied with the foregoing.

C&J Energy complied with the order while it simultaneously pursued
an expedited appeal of the Court of Chancery's order to the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme
Court").

On December 19, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the
Court of Chancery's judgment and vacated the order.  Nabors and
the C&J Energy defendants filed a motion to dismiss that was
granted by the Chancellor on August 24, 2016, including a ruling
that C&J Energy could recover on the bond that was posted to
support the temporary restraining order.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on September 22, 2016.  On
March 23, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal
of the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reargument, which was denied on
March 31, 2017, concluding the case.

Nabors Industries Ltd. provides drilling and rig services.  The
company offers equipment manufacturing, rig instrumentation,
optimization software, and directional drilling services; and It
provides patented steering systems and rig instrumentation
software systems, including ROCKIT directional drilling system
that provides data collection services to oil and gas exploration
and service companies; REVit control system, a stick slip
mitigation system; RIGWATCH software, which monitors a rig's real-
time performance and offers daily reporting for drilling
operations; and DRILLSMART software that allows the drilling
system to adapt to operating parameters and drilling conditions.
The company also provides measurement while drilling systems and
services; manufactures and sells top drives, catwalks, wrenches,
draw works, and other drilling related equipment; and offers well-
site services, such as engineering, transportation and disposal,
construction, maintenance, well logging, directional drilling,
data collection, and other support services.  The Company was
founded in 1968 and is headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda.


NATIONAL CREDIT: Valenzuela Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER VALENZUELA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS,
L.L.C., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant,
Case No. 8:17-cv-00790 (C.D. Cal., May 4, 2017), seeks to recover
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

The Plaintiff also brings an action for damages as an individual
consumer for Defendant's violations of the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) which prohibit debt collectors
from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices.

Beginning February of 2017 and continuing at least through March
of 2017, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on her cellular telephone
number ending in -0713, in an effort to collect an alleged debt
owed from Plaintiff. The Defendant called Plaintiff from telephone
numbers confirmed to belong to Defendant, including without
limitation (714) 795-2438, (714) 795-2494, (718) 795-2481, and
(714) 795-2493. In a call from Defendant on March 2, 2017,
Plaintiff explicitly revoked any consent Defendant may have had to
call her on her cellular telephone. However, Defendant continued
to call Plaintiff several times following her revocation of
consent to be called.

National Credit is debt collection company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Charleston" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc.  The case is titled as Nicole Charleston, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Nationwide Credit, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02686
(E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017).

Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Levinson" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is entitled as Dennis Levinson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Nationwide Credit, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02688
(E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017).

Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: 9th Cir. Revives "Last Call" Stores Price Tag Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda G. Ciccatelli, writing for IPWatchdog, reports that in
September 2014, a California woman named Linda Rubenstein sued
Neiman Marcus over allegedly misleading price tags at their "Last
Call" line of stores.  In the case, Ms. Rubenstein alleged that
the company misled consumers at its Last Call stores with prices
tags that listed a cost "compared to" a fictitious higher price,
designed to lure shoppers into thinking they are getting a deal.
In December of 2014, U.S. District Judge S. James Otero dismissed
Ms. Rubenstein's suit with leave to amend, for failure to state a
claim and failure to allege fraud with particularity.  Recently,
her putative class action revived when a Ninth Circuit panel
agreed that a lower court prematurely tossed her case.  The panel
found that Ms. Rubenstein had sufficiently alleged her false
advertising and unfair business practices claims by showing that
Neiman Marcus may have made misleading statements about its Last
Call merchandise.

Char Pagar -- cpagar@vlplawgroup.com -- partner at VLP Law Group,
sat down with IPWatchdog in a recent interview to shed some light
on this particular case and how customers can protect themselves
from false advertising in general.

These days, false advertising allegations can come from federal
regulators like the FTC, state regulators like the State Attorneys
General, competitors, or class action attorneys purporting to act
on behalf injured customers.

"For advertisers, responding to allegations of false advertising
can be an expensive task that consumes resources the advertiser
would often prefer to use in other ways," she explained.  "The
final resolution of such cases may require the advertiser to make
financial payments and to change its business practices in
specific ways on a go-forward basis."

As of late, according to Pagar, there have been many factors of
false advertising, including federal and state regulators,
plaintiffs' class action attorneys, and competitors -- who are
active and willing to challenge advertising conduct that they
believe is inappropriate.

In the Neiman Marcus case, the plaintiff asserts that the
"compare-to" price tags on items in Neiman Marcus' Last Call
stores are deceptive because they believe that the retailer can't
show that the same or similar items were offered by either Neiman
Marcus stores or competitor stores at that compare-to price.  So,
the District Court dismissed the case because it agreed with
Neiman Marcus that the plaintiffs' complaint didn't describe the
alleged deception in sufficient detail.

On April 18, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court and
held that the plaintiffs did include sufficient detail about the
alleged deception in their complaint.  "It appears that this case
will now go back to the District Court for litigation of the
substantive issues asserted the complaint," Pagar said.

"Many other retailers are already currently facing putative class
action cases as well as regulatory challenges alleging that the
retailers' discount/sale pricing claims are deceptive," she
explained.  "This decision provides more support to the
challengers in those cases, and is likely to cause concern among
those retailers who currently face such challenges as well as
among other retailers who haven't (yet) faced such a challenge."
So, how can customers protect themselves from false advertising?
From a consumer perspective, in Pagar's opinion, the critical
issue is for consumers is to keep themselves informed about the
products that they purchase.  Consumers should research the
products they want to buy and understand what the quality issues
are, what the pricing range is, and where the items are available
for purchase.

She added, "Pricing issues are one area where consumers have an
excellent ability to make prudent marketplace decisions for
themselves.  All they need to do is comparison shop -- online,
offline, with a comparison shopping app, or via other
mechanisms -- to understand what item they are purchasing and how
they personally want to value each item." [GN]


NEW YORK: Court Denied Class Certification in "Brooks" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DERRICK BROOKS, CLIFTON DEMECO, and BRIAN
BLOWERS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SAMUEL D. ROBERTS, Commissioner of
the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01025-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge David N. Hurd entered an order

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

      Class A:

      "[a]ll New York State residents receiving Supplemental
      Nutrition Assistance Program benefits who, since January 1,
      2016, have had, are now having, or will have their benefits
      terminated for allegedly failing to meet a work requirement
      after receiving benefits for three out of thirty-six
      months";

      Subclass A:

      "[a]ll New York State residents receiving Supplemental
      Nutrition Assistance Program benefits who, since January 1,
      2016, have had, are now having, or will have their benefits
      terminated for allegedly failing to meet an ABAWD work
      requirement after receiving benefits for three out of
      thirty-six months and as to whom [d]efendant failed to
      provide a pre-termination notice that is both adequate and
      is mailed at least 10 days before the effective date of the
      termination"; and

      Subclass B:

      "[a]ll New York State residents receiving Supplemental
      Nutrition Assistance Program benefits who, since January 1,
      2016, have had, are now having, or will have their benefits
      terminated for allegedly failing to meet an ABAWD work
      requirement after receiving benefits for three out of
      thirty-six months and as to whom [d]efendant has failed to
      send any initial written notice that the individual has
      been determined to be an ABAWD";

   2. denying Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction;

   3. denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to join a
      necessary party pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7);

   4. granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to
      dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule
      12(b)(6); and

   5. directing Defendant to file an answer to the remaining
      claims within 20 days of the date of this Memorandum-
      Decision and Order.

The Court said, "Plaintiffs have failed to affirmatively
demonstrated compliance with Rule 23's requirements and therefore
their motion for class certification will be denied. As plaintiffs
can show no irreparable harm that would result from the denial of
their request for a preliminary injunction, the motion for a
preliminary injunction will be denied. Further, defendant has
failed to show that the United States Department of Agriculture is
a necessary party and thus his motion to dismiss for failure to
join a necessary party will be denied.
Finally, plaintiffs cannot plausibly state a claim that their due
process rights were violation when defendant classified them as
ABAWDs, issued the allegedly defective Notice of Able Bodied
Adults Without Dependents Status to plaintiff Blowers, failed to
notify plaintiffs Brooks and DeMeco in writing of their
classification, or failed to provide an individualized inquiry
whereby plaintiffs would be screened for an exemption. This is so
because plaintiffs were not deprived of any protected property
interest at that time".

Derrick Brooks, Clifton DeMeco, and Brian Blowers seek relief on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of fellow New York State
residents receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
("SNAP") benefits, commonly referred to as food stamps, who have
had, are now having, or will have their benefits terminated. The
benefits were terminated following New York's implementation of a
federal rule imposing a three month time limit on receipt of food
stamps by able bodied adults without dependents ("ABAWDs") unless
they meet work requirements. The Plaintiffs seek relief from
defendant Samuel D. Roberts
("defendant"), in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New
York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (the
"OTDA").

The OTDA is designated by the United States Department of
Agriculture (the "USDA") Food and Nutrition Service (the "FNS") as
the state agency to provide food stamp benefits to low income New
York residents like plaintiffs.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ivu0z8ze

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc Cohan, Esq.
          Petra T. Tasheff, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW & ECONOMIC JUSTICE, INC.
          275 Seventh Avenue - Suite 1506
          New York, NY 10001

               - and -

          Albany Saima A. Akhtar, Esq.
          Susan C. Antos, Esq.
          EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER
          119 Washington Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Albany, NY 12210

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric T. Schneiderman, Esq.
          C. Harris Dague, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
          NEW YORK ASS'T ATTORNEY GENERAL
          The Capitol
          Albany, NY 12224


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Pisk" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is captioned as Geraldine Pisk,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02719 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017).

Northstar Location provides a full-service receivables debt
collection solution with unparalleled service, support and
performance to clientele.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


NYU HOSPITALS: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, "Valentine" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
COLETTE VALENTINE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NYU HOSPITALS CENTER, the Defendant,
Case No. 154138/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 4, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, and pre- and post-judgment
interest under New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Defendant has allegedly engaged and continues to engage in
illegal and improper wage practices. These practices include: (a)
requiring hourly schedulers to perform work without compensation
during meal breaks; (b) requiring hourly schedulers to perform
work without compensation before the start of their scheduled
shift; (c) requiring Hourly Schedulers to perform work without
compensation after the end of their scheduled shift; (d) failing
to pay hourly schedulers at their straight or agreed upon rate for
all hours worked under 40 hours in a week; (e) failing to pay
hourly schedulers overtime of time and one-half their regular rate
of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week; and (f) failing to
provide accurate wages statements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105


ONE UP: "Salanitri" Suit Seeks Withheld Wages Under Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHANE SALANITRI individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by DAREN TROUSDELL and ONE UP
GAMES, LLC d/b/a ONEUP SPORTS and/or any other entities affiliated
with or controlled by ONE UP GAMES, LLC d/b/a ONEUP SPORTS, the
Plaintiffs, v. DAREN TROUSDELL and ONE UP GAMES, LLC d/b/a ONEUP
SPORTS and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by
ONE UP GAMES, LLC d/b/a ONEUP SPORTS, the Defendants, Case No.
154136/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 4, 2017), seeks to recover all
improperly withheld wages, pursuant to New York Labor Law (NYLL).

Shane Salanitri worked for Defendants from August 2016 to December
2016, performing work for Defendants' digital sports business
including but not limited to video editing work. The Plaintiff
typically worked approximately three to six days per week from
7:00 p.m. until 12:45 a.m. to 2:30 a.m., with a 30-minute lunch
break. From the period of October 2016 to December 2016, the
Plaintiff was not paid at all for the hours he worked.

OneUp Games provides mobile sports platforms. The company offers
live-action mobile sports applications that offer social gaming,
live content, messaging, and revenue generating features; fan-
focused team applications with live game casts, social gaming, in-
stadium utility and proximity networks, revenue driving features,
and social experiences; a mobile sports platform that combines
content, live-sports data, and social experiences with an
integrated managed advertising and sponsorship offering.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212 943 9080
          Facsimile: 212 943 9082
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


PAPA JOHN'S: "Hatmaker" Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Hatmaker, Stephen Hatmaker and Kendall Peyton, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Papa
John's Ohio, LLC, PJ Ohio, LLC, Serazen, LLC, BLD Brands, LLC, PJ
Pizza, Ohio, LLC, PJ Las Vegas, LLC, PJ North Carolina, LLC and
Doug Pak, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00146 (S.D. Ohio, April 27,
2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages, reimbursement of expenses,
liquidated damages, compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action,
together with reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees and such
other legal and equitable relief as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act.

Defendants own and operate twenty-seven Papa John's Pizza
restaurants in the Dayton, Ohio and Cincinnati, Ohio area, and a
total of seventy-three Papa John's Pizza restaurants in Ohio,
Nevada and North Carolina.

Tammy Hatmaker and Stephen Hatmaker worked for Defendants as pizza
delivery drivers at their Papa John's Pizza restaurant on Brandt
Pike in Dayton, Ohio. They use their own vehicles to deliver
pizzas. Peyton worked at their Airway Road location in Dayton,
Ohio.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Biller, Esq.
      Andrew Kimble, Esq.
      MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
      3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
      Cincinnati, OH 45209
      Tel: (513) 651-3700
      Fax: (513) 665-0219
      Email: abiller@msdlegal.com
             akimble@msdlegal.com


PARK WEST EXECUTIVE: Seeks Review of Decision in "Faroque" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants John M. Ahern, Zachary Berman, Park West Executive
Services and Town Car International Holdings, LLC, took an appeal
from the District Court's memorandum and order adopting the report
and recommendation dated March 31, 2017, in the lawsuit styled
Faroque v. Park West Executive Services, Case No. 15-cv-6868, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Brooklyn).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
sought damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Laws.

Mr. Faroque was allegedly employed by the Defendants as a driver
and worked between 80-90 hours per week and was not compensated
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.  He also said he was not
reimbursed for work related expenses, such car maintenance, toll
fees and fuel.

Town Car International is a New York corporation, headquartered in
Long Island City and provides personnel transportation services to
companies.  The Company is owned by Zachary Berman and John M.
Ahern.

The appellate case is captioned as Faroque v. Park West Executive
Services, Case No. 17-1029, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Mohammad O. Faroque, Khaled Khan, MD Imranul
Haque, Khandker Haque, Mohammed S. Alam, Asad Ikbal and Mohammed
E. Karim, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons, are represented by:

      Jeanne Christensen, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
      E-mail: jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Park West Executive Services, DBA Town Car
International; Town Car International Holdings, LLC; Zachary
Berman, in his individual and professional capacities; and John M.
Ahern, in his individual and professional capacities, are
represented by:

          Allan Scott Bloom, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: abloom@proskauer.com


PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALTIES: Quinonez Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled BRIANNA QUINONEZ, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHARMACEUTICAL
SPECIALTIES, INC., a foreign business corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-05966-BRO-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will
move the Court on August 14, 2017 for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all California consumers who purchased a product in the
      Vanicream SPF 50+ product line, within the applicable
      statute of limitations, for personal use until the date
      notice is disseminated. Excluded from this Class are
      Defendants and its officers, directors and employees and
      those who purchased a Product in the Vanicream SPF 50+
      product line for the purpose of resale"; and

   2. approving the Farahi Law Firm, APC as class Counsel.

The lawsuit concerns the Vanicream SPF 50+ product, a line of
sunscreen products labeled with a SPF 50+. The Vaincream SPF 50+
product is sold online and at a variety of the third-party
retailers including Walgreens, drugstore.com, eBay.com,
Amazon.com, coolibar.com, CVS, Wal-Mart, Rite Aid, Shopko, Kerr
Drug and Target. Since launching the Vanicream SPF 50+ products,
Defendant has consistently conveyed the message to consumers
throughout the United States, including California, that the
Vanicream SPF 50+ products provide superior UVB protection
compared to comparable lower SPF valued products, including the
Vanicream SPF 50+ Products. They do not. The research conducted by
Consumer Report in May 2016 revealed that one of the sunscreens in
the 20 percent that received a score of good, fair, or poor is
Vanicream SPF 50+ which tested for SPF 17. Subsequent testing by
Plaintiff confirmed this result. Defendant's superior
UVB protection claims are false, misleading and deceptive.

The Defendant distributes, markets, and sells a variety of
products for the skin and face.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HomqH28l

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Farahi, Esq.
          Raymond M. Collins, Esq.
          FARAHI LAW FIRM, APC
          2276 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 230
          Torrance, CA 905050
          Telephone: (310) 774 4500
          Facsimile: (424) 295 0557
          E-mail: Justin@farahilaw.com
                  raymond@farahilaw.com


PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Faces "Eger" Suit in S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phoenix Financial
Services LLC. The case is titled as SUSAN EGER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
PHOENIX FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC and PENDRICK CAPITAL PARTNERS II,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01437-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind.,
May 4, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Tanya Walton
Pratt.

Phoenix Financial offers investment banking and financial advisory
services to public and private growth companies and middle
market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706 5055
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


PLANNERNET INC: Faces "Champagne" Suit Over Unpaid Wages, OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Champagne, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Plannernet, Inc., a North Carolina
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02128-SK (N.D. Cal.,
April 17, 2017) seeks unpaid wages, damages, restitution and other
relief pursuant to California Labor Code.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has a policy of misclassifying
non-exempt employees as independent contractors, thereby: (1)
unlawfully failing to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees with overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of
eight in a day or 40 in a week; (2) unlawfully failing to provide
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees with timely,
statutorily-mandated meal and rest periods and/or failing to
properly compensate them for meal and rest period violations; (3)
willfully failing to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees with wages for hours worked on a weekly or semi-monthly
basis; (4) willfully failing to provide Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees with accurate semi-monthly itemized wage
statements; (5) willfully failing to pay compensation owed in a
prompt and timely manner to Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees whose employment with Defendants has terminated; (6)
failing to reimburse mandatory employee expenses; and (7)
violating California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL").

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Meeting Manager.

Defendant acts as a temporary staffing agency that provides its
clients with attendee personnel for seminars, conferences,
symposia, trade shows, corporate meetings and dinners at various
events throughout the United States and in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John E. Hill, Esq.
   Enrique Martinez, Esq.
   Law Offices of John E. Hill
   333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 500
   Oakland, CA 94621
   Tel: (510) 588-1000
   Fax: (510) 632-1445
   Email: enriquemartinez@hill-law-offices.com

        - and -

   Ramsey Hanafi, Esq.
   Quintana Hanafi, LLP
   870 Market Street, Suite 1115
   San Francisco, CA 94102
   Tel: (415) 504-3121
   Fax: (415) 233-8770
   Email: info@qhplaw.com


PNM RESOURCES: Unit Still Faces Navajo Nation Allottee Matters
--------------------------------------------------------------
PNM Resources, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Public Service
Company of New Mexico (PNM), continues to defend itself in legal
proceedings related to Navajo Nation allottee matters, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities
in February 2009 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico.  Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members
of the Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were
allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation and
allege that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way grantees
with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are either in
trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of rights-
of-way or both.

In March 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the
plaintiffs' case be dismissed.  The court did not grant plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must
pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking
redress in federal court.

In May 2010, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA), which was denied by the BIA Regional
Director.  In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional
Director's decision to the DOI, Office of Hearings and Appeals,
Interior Board of Indian Appeals.  Following briefing on the
merits, on August 20, 2013, that board issued a decision upholding
the Regional Director's decision that the allottees had failed to
perfect their appeals, and dismissed the allottees' appeals,
without prejudice.  The allottees have not refiled their appeals.

Although this matter was dismissed without prejudice, PNM
considers the matter concluded.  However, PNM continues to monitor
this matter in order to preserve its interests regarding any PNM-
acquired rights-of-way.

In a separate matter, in September 2012, 43 landowners claiming to
be Navajo allottees filed a notice of appeal with the BIA
appealing a March 2011 decision of the BIA Regional Director
regarding renewal of a right-of-way for a PNM transmission line.
The allottees, many of whom are also allottees in the above
matter, generally allege that they were not paid fair market value
for the right-of-way, that they were denied the opportunity to
make a showing as to their view of fair market value, and thus
denied due process.

On January 6, 2014, PNM received notice that the BIA, Navajo
Region, requested a review of an appraisal report on 58 allotment
parcels.  After review, the BIA concluded it would continue to
rely on the values of the original appraisal.

On March 27, 2014, while this matter was stayed, the allottees
filed a motion to dismiss their appeal with prejudice.  On April
2, 2014, the allottees' appeal was dismissed with prejudice.

Subsequent to the dismissal, PNM received a letter from counsel on
behalf of what appears to be a subset of the 43 landowner
allottees involved in the appeal, notifying PNM that the specified
allottees were revoking their consents for renewal of right of way
on six specific allotments.

On January 22, 2015, PNM received a letter from the BIA Regional
Director identifying ten allotments with rights-of-way renewals
that were previously contested.  The letter indicated that the
renewals were not approved by the BIA because the previous consent
obtained by PNM was later revoked, prior to BIA approval, by the
majority owners of the allotments.  It is the BIA Regional
Director's position that PNM must re-obtain consent from these
landowners.

On July 13, 2015, PNM filed a condemnation action in the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico regarding the
approximately 15.49 acres of land at issue.

On December 1, 2015, the court ruled that PNM could not condemn
two of the five allotments at issue based on the Navajo Nation's
fractional interest in the land.  PNM's motion for reconsideration
of this ruling was denied.

On March 31, 2016, the Tenth Circuit granted PNM's petition to
appeal the December 1, 2015 ruling.  On September 18, 2015, the
allottees filed a separate complaint against PNM for federal
trespass.  Both matters have been consolidated and are stayed
while PNM pursues its appeal before the Tenth Circuit.

On June 27, 2016, PNM filed its opening brief in the Tenth
Circuit.  Amicus briefs were filed in support of PNM's position.

On October 5, 2016, the United States, the Navajo Nation, and
individual allottees filed their response briefs.  After the
response briefs were filed, other entities requested leave to file
amicus briefs addressing arguments raised in the United States'
response brief.  Oral argument before the Tenth Circuit was heard
on January 17, 2017.

PNM cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

PNM Resources, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in the
energy and energy-related businesses in the United States.  It
operates through Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) and
Texas-New Mexico Power Company (TNMP) segments.  The PNM segment
is primarily involved in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity.  It generates electricity using coal,
natural gas and oil, nuclear fuel, solar, wind, and geothermal
energy sources.  The TNMP segment provides regulated transmission
and distribution services.  PNM Resources, Inc.  was founded in
1917 and is headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico.


QUALCOMM INC: Carr Sues for Monopoly of Modem Chipset Market
------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Carr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Defendant, Case No.
5:17-cv-02133 (N.D. Cal., April 17, 2017) seeks damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief for injuries suffered as a
result of inflation of price paid by Plaintiff for iPhones and
iPads due to Qualcomm's unlawful maintenance of monopoly power.

During the Class Period, Qualcomm engaged in the monopolistic and
anticompetitive conduct in unreasonable restraint of trade and
commerce in violation of the Cartwright Act, California Business
and Professions Code. As alleged, Qualcomm acquired and maintained
a monopoly in the Modem Chipset Market, says the complaint.

Defendant Qualcomm also entered into anticompetitive agreements
with Apple. The anticompetitive agreement had the cause and effect
of limiting competition in the market for Cellular Device
Components, it adds.

Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm") is one of the largest
producers and sellers of baseband processors, which is an integral
part of any smartphone.

Co-Conspirator Apple Incorporated ("Apple") design, markets and
sells iPad tablet computers, which run Apple's iOS mobile
operating system. Apple designs, markets and sells iPhone
smartphones which run Apple's iOS mobile operating system.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
   Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
   Nicomedes S. Herrera, Esq.
   Ryan J. McEwan, Esq.
   Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq.
   Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.
   555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 500-6800
   Fax: (415) 395-9940
   Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
          mweiler@saverilawfirm.com
          nherrera@saverilawfirm.com
          rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com
          kgibboney@saverilawfirm.com

        - and -

   Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
   Michael J. Kane, Esq.
   Berger & Montague, P.C.
   1622 Locust Street
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 875-3000
   Fax: (215) 875-4604
   Email: ecramer@bm.net
          mkane@bm.net


QUEMETCO INC: "Ramirez" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Salvador C. Ramirez, on behalf of
all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Quemetco, Inc. and
Does 1-20 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC652619, was
removed on May 4, 2017 from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:17-cv-03384 to the proceeding.

Quemetco recycles used lead-based batteries from vehicles and
other lead bearing scrap to reclaim lead and other recyclable
materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Quemetco, Inc.:

          Andrew L Satenberg, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS AND PHILLIPS
          11355 West Olympic Blvd
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312 4000
          Facsimile: (310) 312 4224
          E-mail: asatenberg@manatt.com


RENAISSANCE HOME: Faces "Barnhill" Sues Over Unpaid OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Latoya Barnhill, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Renaissance Home Health Care Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00815 (N.D. Ohio, April 17, 2017) is
brought against the Defendant as a result of Defendant's practices
and policies of not paying its non-exempt home health aides,
including Plaintiff, overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for the hours they
worked over 40 each workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant is a home health care business. Plaintiff was employed
as a home health aide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
   Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
   Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
   The Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC
   920 Rockefeller Building
   614 W. Superior Avenue
   Cleveland, OH 44113
   Tel: 216-696-5000
   Fax: 216-696-7005
   Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
          chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
          lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Raabe Sues Over Defective Washing Machines
---------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA L. RAABE, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, THE HOME DEPOT, INC., LOWE'S HOME
CENTERS, LLC., BEST BUY CO., INC., SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-at-00476 (E.D. Cal., May 4, 2017), seeks
relief in the form of:

     (1) an injunction against Defendants from any further sales
of the Recalled Washing Machines and to take such other remedial
action as may otherwise be requested herein; and

     (2) money damages to adequately and reasonably compensate
owners of the Recalled Washing Machines who have, through no fault
of their own, purchased defective and dangerous Samsung washing
machines.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other
purchasers of the Recalled Washing Machines in the United States,
its possessions, or territories from March 2011 to November 2016.
Plaintiff. The suit relates to the marketing and selling of
certain defective Samsung home washing machines that have latent
and inherent defects and Samsung's failed recall of these same
washing machines. These washing machines "explode," or suffer
catastrophic failure during a given machine's normal usage because
of a design defect and/or manufacturing flaw.

On January 30, 2013, Raabe purchased a Recalled Washing Machine
(model number WA400PJHDWR/AA) from a Best Buy store in Citrus
Heights, California On November 4, 2016, Samsung began a recall
(Recall No. 17-028) of 34 distinct models (the "Recalled Washing
Machine(s)"), all being models of Samsung top-load washing
machines, including the model purchased by Plaintiff as described
above. The stated reason for the recall is that "[t]he [Samsung]
washing machine top can unexpectedly detach from the washing
machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury from impact."
The recall bulletin further notes that "Samsung has received 733
reports of washing machines experiencing excessive vibration or
the top detaching from the washing machine chassis. There are nine
related reports of injuries, including a broken jaw, injured
shoulder, and other impact or fall-related injuries." See
https://is.gd/8cu8B0

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the
remedies provided in Samsung's recall bulletin allow consumers the
option of any one of the following:

     (1) an in-home repair or retrofit that includes reinforcement
of the washer's top and a free one-year extension of the
manufacturer's warranty;

     (2) a rebate to be applied towards the purchase of a new
Samsung or other brand of washing machine, along with free
installation of the new unit and removal of the old unit; or

     (3) a full refund for consumers who purchased their washing
machine within the past thirty days of the recall announcement.

None of the options were available to Plaintiff because: (1) the
retrofit that Samsung proposes does not actually fix the machine
so that Plaintiff can use it as intended at sale; (2) the rebate
is a fraction of the cost of replacement; and (3) Plaintiff
purchased her machines before the recall.

Samsung Electronics supplies consumer electronics and digital
products in the United States. The company operates through two
divisions, Consumer Business Division and Enterprise Business
Division.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN PC
          4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor
          Long Beach, CA 90804
          Telephone: (562) 391 2487
          Facsimile: (415) 477 6710
          E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com
                  gnecf@classcounsel.com


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Law Firm Investigates Potential Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Parker, writing for Market Exclusive, reports that
SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. is the subject of a class action
investigation by law firm Andrews & Springer LLC.  The law firm
alleges that it is investigating the company over a possible
breach of fiduciary duty. The announcement comes as the company
prepares to unveil its first quarter earnings on May 9, 2017.

Class Action Lawsuit

Information is still sketchy on what the company could have done
wrong in relation to its duty of protecting investor's interests.
The only thing that is clear at the moment is that the law firm is
encouraging owners of SeaWorld Entertainment shares to log in to
their website if they wish to protect their investments and
receive additional information.

Even as Andrew & Springer lodges investigations into the company's
operations it appears some investors remain confident about the
company's long-term prospects.  Hill Path Holdings is fresh from
announcing a 7.7% stake in the theme park and Entertainment
Company.

SeaWorld Positive Analysts Ratings

The company also continues to enjoy favorable ratings on the
Street equity researchers at Janney Montgomery having reiterated a
buy rating on the stock.  In a research note issued to investors
on April 13th 2017, the researchers reiterated a share price
target of $24 representing potential upside of more than 30% from
the current levels.

Ahead of the company's earnings call on May 9 researchers at Zack
Investment Research remain confident of the theme park company
posting sales of $207.09 for the first quarter.  Consensus
estimates from eight analysts currently stands at the company
posting revenues of $213.15 million with the lowest estimate
standing at $199.5 million.

Should SeaWorld meet analysts' estimates on sales then the same
would represent a negative year over year growth given that it
posted sales of $220.4 million for the same quarter last year.

SeaWorld Entertainment stock has been on an impressive run in the
market this year and is currently trading at highs of $17.77 a
share.  The stock is slowly closing in on its 52-week highs of
$20.17 a share.  It now awaits to be seen if the class action
lawsuit at hand will have any impact more so in affecting
investor's sentiments going forward. [GN]


SECURE COLLATERAL: Snyder Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW PAUL SNYDER, the Plaintiff, v. SECURE COLLATERAL
MANAGEMENT and NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, the Defendants, Case No.
5:17-cv-00727-HGD (N.D. Ala., May 4, 2017), seeks remedies under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), including
statutory damages, actual damages, and the costs of the action,
together with a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the
court.

The case concerns Secure Collateral's violations of the FDCPA.
Secure Collateral (or one of its agents) calls consumers, alleging
that the consumers owe debts and falsely represents that it is not
a debt collector. Navy Federal uses Secure Collateral as its agent
and is therefore a party to the misrepresentations and
impermissible conduct of Secure Collateral as it is done on their
behalf. Throughout these interactions, Secure Collateral does not
accurately identify itself. Secure Collateral does not indicate
that it is a debt collector, or that it is attempting to collect a
debt and that any information obtained will be used for that
purpose. In fact, Secure Collateral explicitly and deceptively
states that it is not a debt collector.

Snyder took out a car loan with Navy Federal Credit Union. Snyder
subsequently fell behind on his loan payments, at which point,
Navy Federal made arrangements with Secure Collateral to collect
on his debt. On January 27, 2017, Snyder and his brother, Daniel,
received calls on their cellular telephones from an individual who
identified himself as Steven of Secured Collateral. Steven
explicitly stated he was not a debt collector, but stressed
the importance of Snyder's matter.

Secure Collateral specializes in the location (skip tracing) of
collateral across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS,
          FISHER & GOLDFARB, L.L.C.
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203

                - and -

          Daniel B. Snyder, Esq.
          GAINES LLC
          2160 Highland Ave. South, Suite 101
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 314 0500


SENTRY CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SHEILA SCHMITZ and ROBERT SCHMITZ, as
Representatives of the Estate of JOANNE SCHMITZ, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
SENTRY CREDIT, INC. and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00647-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order certifying a class and subclass; appointing the
Plaintiffs as class representatives; appointing Ademi & O'Reilly,
LLP as class counsel; and for such other and further relief as the
Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XdV2kAmc

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


SHREE LAXMI: Faces "Pacheco" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME GARCIA PACHECO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, against SHREE LAXMI RESTAURANT INC.
(d/b/a SWAGAT), ABISHEK SHARMA, and LALA R. SHARMA, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03165 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2017), alleges that
Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker, but he was
required to spend a substantial amount of time each day performing
non-tipped duties unrelated to delivery work.

The case seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the N.Y. Labor
Law.

Swagat is an Indian restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200


SONOMA MISSION: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Payne, writing for The Press Democrat, reports that Sonoma
Mission Inn is expected to pay nearly $1 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit with former spa employees.

A tentative ruling on May 2 from Judge Rene Chouteau gave final
approval to the 103-member class, each expected to receive an
average of $6,200.  Judge Chouteau also approved a $331,000 payout
to the San Francisco-based lawyers, finding the amount was high
for Sonoma County but justified considering no local lawyers would
take the case without a retainer.

The Willow Stream Spa workers claimed unfair labor conditions
spanning 2012 to 2015.  Some reported being scheduled to provide
treatments without adequate breaks.  Others said they received no
overtime when working more than 40 hours per week. [GN]


SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on May 2 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of persons and entities that acquired Synchronoss
Technologies, Inc. ("Synchronoss" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SNCR)
securities between May 5, 2016, and April 27, 2017 inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than June 30, 2017 to serve as lead plaintiff.
Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224 or 310-201-9150, or
at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

On April 27, 2017, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Synchronoss Announces Management Changes; Company Issues
Preliminary First Quarter 2017 Results."  Therein, the Company
disclosed that it expected "total revenue for the first quarter of
2017 to be $13 million to $14 million less than the company's
previously announced guidance" and that it expected operating
margins of 8% to 10% which was also less than previously announced
guidance.  The Company stated that it was "disappointed with [its]
Q1 performance in this first quarter following our acquisition of
Intralinks," and further disclosed that its Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO"), Ronald Hovsepian, and its Chief Financial Officer
("CFO"), John Frederick were leaving the Company.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $11.33 per share, or
46%, to close at $13.29 per share on April 27, 2017, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the newly-
acquired Intralinks was underperforming; (2) that the Company's
integration of other acquisitions was underperforming; (3) that
the Company was facing serious hurdles integrating, and
capitalizing on, its newly acquired companies; (4) that, as such,
the Company's guidance was overstated; and (5) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Synchronoss'
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Gigamon during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than June 30, 2017 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century
Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310)
201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. [GN]


TOKAI PHARMA: Defending Class Suits over Otic Pharma Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has provided supplemental disclosures
to a definitive proxy statement, which is the subject of two
putative securities class actions filed against the Company, among
other defendants.  These litigation-related disclosures are stated
in the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 11, 2017, a copy of which can be
accessed at https://is.gd/ugbKvD

On April 7, 2017, the Company filed a definitive proxy statement
on Schedule 14A (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") with the SEC
with respect to the special meeting of Tokai's stockholders
scheduled to be held on May 9, 2017 in order to, among other
things, obtain the stockholder approvals necessary to complete the
purchase by Tokai of all of the ordinary and preferred shares of
Otic Pharma, Ltd., a private limited company organized under the
laws of the State of Israel ("Otic"), in exchange for shares of
Tokai common stock (the "Otic Transaction"), on the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth in the Amended and Restated
Share Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 2, 2017, among Tokai,
Otic, and the shareholders of Otic named therein (the "Share
Purchase Agreement").

In connection with the Otic Transaction, two putative securities
class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against Tokai, Jodie P. Morrison, Seth
L. Harrison, Stephen Buckley, Jr., Cheryl L. Cohen, David A.
Kessler, and Joseph A. Yanchik, III.

The two complaints are captioned as follows: Bushansky v. Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-10621-DPW (filed April
11, 2017), and Wilson v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.
1:17-cv-10645-DPW (filed April 14, 2017) (together, the
"Stockholder Litigation").

Each lawsuit alleges that the Definitive Proxy Statement made
false and misleading statements and omissions in connection with
the Otic Transaction, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9, promulgated thereunder.

Each plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons and
entities that own Tokai common stock. Each lawsuit seeks, among
other things, preliminary and permanent injunctions of the Otic
Transaction unless Tokai discloses certain information requested
by plaintiff, rescission and unspecified damages if the Otic
Transaction is consummated, and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that no supplemental disclosures are required
under applicable laws. However, to avoid the risk of the
Stockholder Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the closing
of the Share Purchase Agreement and to minimize the expense of
defending the Stockholder Litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company is making certain disclosures
in its Form 8-K filing to supplement and revise those contained in
the Definitive Proxy Statement.

The litigation-related supplemental disclosures contained below
should be read in conjunction with the Definitive Proxy Statement,
which is available on the Internet site maintained by the
Securities and Exchange Commission at http://www.sec.gov,along
with periodic reports and other information the Company files with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company and the other named defendants deny that they have
committed or assisted others in committing any violations of law
or breaches of duty to Company stockholders, and expressly
maintain that they have complied with their fiduciary and other
legal duties and are providing the litigation-related supplemental
disclosures below solely to try to eliminate the burden and
expense of further litigation, to put the claims that were or
could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay
to the closing of the Share Purchase Agreement that might arise
from further litigation. Nothing in the litigation-related
supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal
necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
litigation-related supplemental disclosures.

Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on developing and commercializing therapies for prostate cancer
and other hormonally-driven diseases.  Its lead drug candidate is
galeterone, an oral small molecule that is in various clinical
trials for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-
resistant prostate cancer.  The Company's androgen receptor
degradation agents drug discovery program is focused on
identifying and developing compounds for patients with androgen
receptor signaling diseases, including prostate cancer.  Tokai
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in
Boston, Massachusetts.


TOP LINE: Faces "Frisbie" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN FRISBIE, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TOP LINE RESTAURANTS, INC., TOP
LINE MANAGEMENT, LLC, FEAST FOODS, LLC, FEAST AMERICAN
DINERS, LLC, and REVEILLE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
6:17-cv-06270 (W.D.N.Y., April 28, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being
paid premium overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and/or the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an Assistant Manager at
the Denny's restaurant located in Horseheads, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
     Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
     Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
     KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
     Two International Drive, Suite 350
     Rye Brook, NY 10573
     Phone: (914) 934-9200
     Fax: (914) 934-9220
     Email: seth@klafterolsen.com
            fran@klafterolsen.com
            christopher.timmel@klafterolsen.com

        - and -

     Drew Legando, Esq.
     LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
     1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: (216) 522-9000
     Fax: (216) 522-9007
     Email: drew@lgmlegal.com

        - and -

     Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
     Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
     MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
     412 H Street, NE, Suite 302
     Washington, D.C. 20002
     Phone: (202) 470-3520
     Fax: (202) 800-2730
     Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
            jrathod@classlawdc.com


TRICKEY'S SERVICE: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that a Wood River towing service seeks to dismiss a
customer's class action over alleged excessive fees, arguing that
the plaintiff is a member of a proposed class in a similar
lawsuit.

Michael Ledbetter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed his complaint Feb. 22 against Trickey's
Service Inc. and Jean Kainz.

In his complaint, Mr. Ledbetter claims his Jeep was stolen on
Feb. 15. When the vehicle was located, it was towed by Trickey's
Service.

Mr. Ledbetter claims he only became aware that his Jeep had been
towed after a friend saw his vehicle in the defendant's lot in
Wood River.

The plaintiff claims he was able to retrieve his vehicle after
paying a total charge of $538. He claims he was charged a full
day's storage rate even though the actual storage time was only a
few hours.

Mr. Ledbetter alleges the defendants charged him substantially
more than similar charges for voluntary tows and they forced
payment by threatening to charge increasing storage fees.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit on March 24
through attorneys Mark Goldenberg -- mark@ghalaw.com -- and Kevin
Green -- kevin@ghalaw.com -- of Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli PC
in Edwardsville.

They claim that after the police located Ledbetter's stolen
vehicle, they contacted Trickey's Service to tow the car.

They argue that counts I and II should be dismissed because they
are identical to the unjust enrichment allegations made against
Trickey's in a similar lawsuit filed by the same attorney for
plaintiff Lucas Clark last year (16-L-638).  The case is currently
pending in Madison County.

Based on Mr. Ledbetter's allegations in counts I and II, he is a
member of the putative class described in Clark, which includes
"all persons who, on or after May 6, 2011, had vehicles towed and
stored by Trickey's Service, Inc., at the direction of someone
other than the vehicle owner or operator, and where charged fees
for towing in excess of the rate charged to tow non-police towns."

"Because Ledbetter's claims are identical to Clark's, Ledbetter is
a member of Clark's putative class, and the claims are being
pursued by the same attorney before the same Judge, Ledbetter will
suffer no prejudice by dismissal of his duplicative action," the
motion states.

The defendants also argue that counts III and IV should be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim for fraud.
They claim the plaintiff failed to assert that Kainz made any
false statement of material fact, that any allegedly fraudulent
statements were made to induce the plaintiff to act or that he
relied upon or was deceived by such statements.

They say Kainz made truthful statements that "alerted" customers
to Trickey's Service's practices, and anyone who heard the
statements could not have been damaged by relying on them.

Even if Ledbetter did allegedly hear fraudulent statements from
Kainz, "his allegations and sworn statements demonstrate that he
did not believe any alleged misrepresentations or act in reliance
thereon," the motion states.

Mr. Ledbetter seeks an award of more than $50,000, plus costs of
the suit.

He is represented by Thomas Maag of Maag Law Firm LLC in Wood
River.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-267
[GN]


TWITTER INC: Faces Securities Class Actions in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Wallace Witkowski, writing for Marketwatch, reports that Twitter
Inc. said it is facing class-action lawsuits in California
alleging securities violations, according to a Securities and
Exchange Commission filing on May 2.  Twitter said "current and
former officers" of the company have been named as defendants in
pending class-action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California and the Superior Court for San
Mateo County in California.  Twitter did not disclose any further
detail of the lawsuits.  Twitter shares rose 0.2% to $18.28 after
hours. [GN]


U.S. SECURITY: "Cogburn" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JARED COGBURN, individually, and on behalf
of all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. U.S.
SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00029-
TWP-MCLC (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to:

   1. authorize this case to proceed as a collective action for
      overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act
      (FLSA) and supplemental Tennessee state law claims, on
      behalf of:

      "non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant at the HSN
      facility in Greeneville, Tennessee1 and were required to
      perform compensable work without being compensated for such
      work";

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WX6ysf8W

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward E. Hollis, Esq.
          Samantha R. Chapman, Esq.
          Gregory P. Abrams, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46240
          Telephone: (317) 237 0300
          Facsimile: (317) 237 1000
          E-mail: edward.hollis@FaegreBD.com
                  samantha.chapman@FaegreBD.com
                  gregory.abrams@FaegreBD.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Bowman, Esq.
          Brandon L. Morrow, Esq.
          KRAMER RAYSON LLP
          P. O. Box 629
          Knoxville, TN 37901-0629
          Telephone: (865) 525 5134
          Facsimile: (865) 522 5723
          E-mail: rlbowman@kramer-rayson.com
                  bmorrow@kramer-rayson.com


U.S. XPRESS: Ayala Suit to Certify Class of Truck Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ANTHONY AYALA, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. U.S. XPRESS
ENTERPRISES, INC., U.S. XPRESS, INC., and DOES 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00137-GW-KK (C.D. Cal.), the
Mr. Anthony Ayala will move the Court on June 15, 2017, at 8:30
a.m. or at such other date and time as may be ordered by the Court
for an order certifying a class of:

   "all truck drivers who have worked in California for US Xpress
   after the completion of training while residing in California
   (as reflected by their mailing addresses provided to US
   Xpress) at any time since four years before the filing of this
   legal action until such time as there is a final disposition
   of this lawsuit".

In addition, the Plaintiff also asks that the Court appoint him as
Class Representative. Plaintiff also requests that the Court
appoint his counsel -- Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho; Law
Offices of James M. Sitkin; and Swartz Swidler LLC -- as Class
Counsel.

The motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to
Civil Local Rule 7-3, which took place on March 24, 2017, and May
4, 2017.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SPtxRoC9

The Plaintiffs represented by:

          David Borgen, Esq.
          James Kan, Esq.
          Raymond A. Wendell, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835 1417
          E-mail: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
                  jkan@gbdhlegal.com
                  rwendell@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          James M. Sitkin, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
          1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 318 1048
          Facsimile: (415) 362 3268
          E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com
                  jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com


UNIVERSAL TAX: D&B Seeks to Certify Tax Software Purchasers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled D&B ENTERPRISES LLC d/b/a BAIN
ACCOUNTING/TAX, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL TAX SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a
CCH SMALL FIRM SERVICES, the Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-05702
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons that purchased CCH SFS's ATX 2012 professional
      tax software for use in preparing individual and business
      tax returns for the 2012 tax year".

   2. appointing the named Plaintiff as class representative; and

   3. appointing its counsel as Class Counsel.

The case concerns Defendant deliberate, profit-driven, decision to
conceal significant, widespread defects plaguing its ATX 2012 tax
preparation software ("ATX 2012") -- about which it knew prior to
selling the software to 28,535 solo or small firm tax
professionals ("Class Members") for the 2012 tax season.

Alternatively, the Plaintiff seeks to certify a Rule 23(c)(4) Core
Issues Class. The Core Issues include but are not limited to,
whether Universal omitted a material fact concerning ATX 2012,
whether ATX 2012 was of merchantable quality; whether ATX 2012 was
unfit for the ordinary purposes for which it was used; whether ATX
2012 conformed to the quality of other brands in the marketplace,
or was of the same average grade, quality and value as similar
goods sold under similar circumstances; whether an implied
contract in fact to repair the software was formed through
Defendant's actions; and whether Universal's retention of the
payments for the software was unjust under the circumstances.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628 4949
          Facsimile: (708) 628 4950
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
                  dank@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Don M. Downing, Esq.
          Gretchen Garrison, Esq.
          Jason D. Sapp, Esq.
          GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241 5620
          Facsimile: (314) 241 4140
          E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com
                  jsapp@grgpc.com


US COMPLIANCE: Faces "Cross" Suit Over TCPA Violation in Or.
------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Cross, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US Compliance Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00609-CL (D. Or., April 17, 2017)
seeks damages, injunctive relief and any other legal remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system or
prerecorded voice for the purpose of marketing to non-customer of
US Compliance Services, LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
   Hyde & Swigart
   23 Newtown St.
   Medford, OR 97501
   Tel: (602) 265-3332
   Fax: (602) 230-4482
   Email: david@westcoastlitigation.com


VOLARIS: Right to Appeal Dismissal of IPO-Related Suit Expires
--------------------------------------------------------------
Controladora Vuela Compania de Aviacion, S.A.B. de C.V. (Volaris)
disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016
that the plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit related to
the Company's Initial Public Offering has not appealed the judge's
decision to dismiss the case and that the time to appeal has
expired. Accordingly, any right of the plaintiff to pursue the
litigation has ended.

The Company and its CEO, CFO, certain of its current directors and
certain of its former directors, as well as certain underwriters
were among the defendants in a putative class action commenced on
February 24, 2015 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of
American depositary shares (ADSs) in and/or traceable to the
September 2013 IPO.

The complaint, which also named as defendants the underwriters of
the IPO, generally alleged that the registration statement and
prospectus for the ADSs contained misstatements and omissions with
respect to the recognition of non-ticket revenue in violation of
the federal securities laws, and sought unspecified damages and
rescission.

The motion to dismiss requested by the Company and all defendants
was granted with prejudice in their favor on July 6, 2016.

Controladora Vuela Compania de Aviacion, S.A.B. de C.V. provides
air transportation services for passengers, cargo, and mail in
Mexico and internationally.  The Company was founded in 2003 and
is headquartered in Mexico City, Mexico.


WELLS FARGO: Still Defends RMBS Trust Complaints in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. continues to defend itself in legal actions
in the state and district courts of New York regarding residential
mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts, according to the Form
10-D/A filed by GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2012-GCJ7 with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly
distribution period from March 11, 2017 to April 12, 2017.

On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed a civil
complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo Bank"), in
its capacity as trustee under 276 residential mortgage backed
securities ("RMBS") trusts, which was later amended on July 18,
2014, to increase the number of trusts to 284 RMBS trusts.

On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily
dismiss the state court action without prejudice.  That same day,
a group of institutional investors filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "District Court") against Wells Fargo
Bank, alleging claims against the bank in its capacity as trustee
for 274 RMBS trusts (the "Federal Court Complaint").

In December 2014, the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss
their original state court action was granted.  As with the prior
state court action, the Federal Court Complaint is one of six
similar complaints filed contemporaneously against RMBS trustees
(Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and US
Bank) by a group of institutional investor plaintiffs.

The Federal Court Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank alleges that
the trustee caused losses to investors and asserts causes of
action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged
failure to: (i) notify and enforce repurchase obligations of
mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations
and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged events of
default, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care
following alleged events of default.  Relief sought includes money
damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and
equitable relief.

Other cases alleging similar causes of action have been filed
against Wells Fargo Bank and other trustees in the District Court
by RMBS investors in these and other transactions, and these cases
against Wells Fargo Bank are proceeding before the same District
Court judge.

A similar complaint was also filed May 27, 2016 in New York state
court by a different plaintiff investor.

On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the
Federal Court Complaint in which the District Court declined to
exercise jurisdiction over 261 trusts at issue in the Federal
Court Complaint; the District Court also allowed plaintiffs to
file amended complaints as to the remaining, non-dismissed trusts,
if they so chose, and three amended complaints have been filed.

On December 17, 2016, the investor plaintiffs in the 261 trusts
dismissed from the Federal Court Complaint filed a new complaint
in New York state court (the "State Court Complaint").

According to the Form 10-D/A, there can be no assurances as to the
outcome of the litigations, or the possible impact of the
litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts.  However, Wells
Fargo Bank denies liability and believes that it has performed its
obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions
were not the cause of any losses to investors, and that it has
meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs'
claims vigorously.

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association provides personal, small
business, and commercial banking services.  It was formerly known
as Wells Fargo Bank American Trust Company and changed its name to
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association in January, 1962.  The
Company was founded in 1852 and is based in Sioux Falls, South
Dakota.  Wells Fargo Bank, National Association operates as a
subsidiary of WFC Holdings Corporation.


WELLS FARGO: Asks Court to Deny Class Certification in "Nguyen"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned HUY NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05239-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant
will move the Court for an order denying class certification.

The Defendant said, "At the very minimum, no late pay class can be
certified beyond December 31, 2016. Plaintiff, who is the sole
proposed class representative, last worked for Wells Fargo in
2015. Effective January 2017, however, Wells Fargo thoroughly
revamped its HMC compensation plan to better clarify that no
incentive pay is earned until the 16th day of the month following
the month of loan activity. While Plaintiff's counsel might argue
that the new plan is still non-compliant with Section 204, the
fact that Plaintiff never worked under that Plan and the Plan is
so different from the ones under which he did work, should
preclude him from representing a class challenging the 2017 Comp
Plan. Accordingly, if the Court is inclined to certify any sort of
late pay class, the cut-off date for that class should be
no later than December 31, 2016".

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ipzncD1b

Attorneys for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.:

          Thomas R. Kaufman, Esq.
          Paul Bmkowitz, Esq.
          Jason P. Brown, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue or the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
          Telephone: (310) 228 3700
          Facsimile: (310) 228 3701
          E-mail: tkaufinan@sheppardmullin.com
                  pberkowitz@shepparamullin.com
                  jpbrown@sheppardmullin.com


WHITING PETROLEUM: "Schindler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Craig Schindler, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Whiting Petroleum Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01051, (D. Colo., April 27, 2017),
seeks unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
unpaid benefits and compensation, pre- and post-judgment interest
and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Whiting is an independent exploration and production company with
an oil-focused asset base. Whiting operates throughout the United
States, including Colorado where Plaintiff worked as a rig welder.
Throughout his employment with Whiting, he was classified as an
independent contractor and paid the same hourly rate for all hours
worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek, with no
overtime compensation, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

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


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Fails to Pay Regular & OT Wages, Ulbrich Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
BARTON ULBRICH, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other
aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., a
Delaware Regular and Overtime Wages); corporation, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC660208 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 4, 2017), seeks to recover regular and overtime
wages pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt Shipper Receiver
at one of Defendants' business locations in the city of Pasadena
from October 2011 to June 2016. Plaintiff's job duties primarily
consisted of operating and maintaining the stock room and other
related tasks.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were required
to undergo security bag checks and were not paid for the time
spent going through the bag checks; were not provided with a
compliant 30-minute, duty-free meal period; and were unable to
take full, 30-minute duty-free meal breaks due to understaffing
and a heavy workload. Their meal breaks were also interrupted
because work needed to be done and no one else was available to do
it. Defendants did not pay meal period premium wages to Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees when compliant meal periods were
not provided.

Williams-Sonoma, Inc. is an American publicly traded consumer
retail company that sells kitchenwares and home furnishings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald H. Bae, Esq.
          Olivia D. Scharrer, Esq.
          AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP
          1156 E. Green Street, Suite 200
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Telephone: (213) 674 6080
          Facsimile: (213) 674 6081


YIN WALL: Baumann Farms Seeks to Certify Ginseng Growers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled BAUMANN FARMS, LLP, a Wisconsin limited
liability partnership; GLENN HEIER; and AARON KAISER, the
Plaintiffs, v. YIN WALL CITY, INC., an Illinois corporation; SUT
I. FONG; CHOENG SAT O; YIN WALL CITY, INC., a Texas corporation;
and YIN WALL CITY, DALLAS, INC., a Texas Corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-605-WED (E.D. Wisc.), Plaintiffs ask
the Court to certify a class of:

   "all individuals and entities engaged in the business of
   cultivating ginseng in the State of Wisconsin who have
   registered as ginseng growers with Wisconsin's Department of
   Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection between January
   2010 and the date of judgment, as mandated by Wis. Stats. par.
   94.50(2), excluding Defendants, and all officers, directors,
   employees and agents of Defendants".

The case is an action for unfair competition and false advertising
in violation of section 43(a) of the U.S. Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
section 1125(a).

The Ginseng Board of Wisconsin, Inc. is a non-stock, not for
profit corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of
the State of Wisconsin, located in Marathon City, Wisconsin. The
creation of GBW was authorized by a marketing order issued by
Wisconsin's Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection (DATCP) pursuant to Wis. Stats. Chapter 96 and the
Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter ATCP 140.2. By virtue of
Wis. Stats. Par 94.50(2) and the Wisconsin Administrative Code,
Chapter ATCP, each and every ginseng grower in the State of
Wisconsin must register annually with DATCP, and is represented by
GBW in its marketing and sales efforts. In 2017 one hundred
180 ginseng growers registered with DATCP. Plaintiffs Baumann
Farms, LLP, Glenn Heier, and Aaron Kaiser are all Wisconsin
ginseng growers, with ginseng farms located in Marathon County,
Wisconsin. Growers have all registered as such with DATCP.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=m0e4Ay7q

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael T. Hopkins, Esq.
          Telephone: (888) 227 1655
          757 N. Broadway, Suite 201
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          E-mail: mth@ip-lit.us


* Defendants Losing War in Securities Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------
Douglas Greene, Esq., of Lane Powell PC, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that the securities class action war is about far
more than the height of the pleading hurdles plaintiffs must
clear, the scorecard of motions to dismiss won and lost, or median
settlement amounts.  It is a fight for strategic positioning --
about achieving a system of securities litigation that sets up one
side or the other to win more cases over the long term.  How this
war plays out has real-world consequences for the people sued in
securities class actions.

Defendants win a lot of battles.  The Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 was an enormous victory for the
defense bar, imposing high pleading burdens on plaintiffs and
establishing a safe harbor for forward-looking statements that, in
Bill Lerach's famous words, gives defendants "license to lie."
The rate of dismissal is markedly higher than the dismissal rate
in other types of complex federal litigation.  And cases that
survive motions to dismiss typically settle for predictable
amounts.

But despite their success in battle, defendants are losing the
war.  The root of the problem is the defense side's lack of a
centralized command, which creates a mismatch in expertise,
experience, and efficiency.

While the plaintiffs' bar is relatively small, with about a dozen
firms that dominate, the defense bar is highly splintered,
comprising many dozens of firms that can credibly pitch a case,
with multiple possible lead partners within each firm -- some
qualified and some, frankly, not qualified.  As a result, the
average plaintiffs' partner is many times more experienced than
the average defense partner.

While the plaintiffs' bar's specialized composition and small size
yield a unified approach, the splintered nature of the defense bar
makes this impossible for defendants.
While the defense bar has achieved significant legislative and
judicial success, it has come with costly collateral consequences.

While the plaintiffs' bar's contingent-fee structure incentivizes
efficiency, the defense bar is wildly inefficient due to hourly
billing and the view that D&O insurance reimbursement is "free
money."  This penalizes the defense firms' clients -- both in
individual cases and on the whole -- by leaving less insurance
money for a vigorous defense and settlement.

How can the defense bar approximate the plaintiffs' bar's
advantages?  Given the competitive legal environment and large-
firm economics, the defense bar can't achieve a centralized
command on its own.  The only way to do so is to give greater
control to D&O insurers, the player with the greatest economic and
strategic stake in both individual cases and on the whole.

Winning the securities litigation war isn't an abstraction or a
dispute about allocation of money between law firms and insurance
companies. It's about the safety and comfort of real people who
face securities litigation.  At the core of every securities case
are people accused of doing something wrong -- not just directors
and officers, but also hard-working company employees who find
themselves at the center of a securities suit.  Just the idea of
securities class actions makes businesspeople uncomfortable.

So the most fundamental question we on the defense side must ask
ourselves is: how does the system of securities litigation defense
position directors and officers to withstand securities litigation
safely and comfortably?

To state the obvious, defendants are entitled to a system that
allows them a fair fight with sufficient insurance resources.

Mr. Greene says "I have divided this analysis into two blog posts.
In this post (Part I), I explain how and why the plaintiffs' bar
is stronger than ever.  In my next post (Part II), I'll analyze
the current state of the defense bar, explain why defendants are
losing the war despite winning many battles, and propose a
solution to the current mismatch between counsel for plaintiffs
and defendants."

Part I: The Plaintiffs' Bar Is Back -- and Better than Ever

"When I was a young lawyer, most of my cases were against Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach.  I still remember the San Diego
office's phone number by heart (619-231-1058) -- remember when we
had to call people to communicate with them?  Of course, there
were several other strong plaintiffs' firms and prominent lawyers,
including some of my favorite lawyers in the plaintiffs' bar --
though from my vantage point, Lerach and Weiss loomed large.

"The downfall of Lerach and Weiss is well-known, so I won't
recount it here.  Many defense lawyers still discuss it with odd
glee.  To me, it was sad and unfortunate.  My direct contacts with
them made huge impressions on me.  For example, one of Bill
Lerach's oral arguments remains the most impressive advocacy I've
ever witnessed.  And I'll always remember the throng of defense
lawyers at the first IPO Securities Litigation hearing turning to
watch Mel Weiss enter the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse
Ceremonial Courtroom, on September 7, 2001.

"Lerach and Weiss helped shape and police our system of disclosure
and governance, and our markets, corporate governance, and
retirement savings are better off for it.  I believe that most
public company disclosure deciders see the image of Bill Lerach
when they decide whether or not to disclose something.

"So their exit naturally left a void in the plaintiffs' bar.  But
a remarkable thing has happened: their protÇgÇs, who are my
contemporaries and counterparts -- as well as other senior
plaintiffs' lawyers and their protÇgÇs, plus some new entrants
into the plaintiffs' securities class action market, described
below -- have not only filled the gap, but have bolstered the bar.
The plaintiffs' bar is now back, and better than ever."

Looking back, several things converged to cause this.  The first
was the stock options backdating scandal, which began with a study
by University of Iowa professor Eric Lie that showed an unusually
large number of stock option grants to executives at stock price
lows.  Since few of the companies exposed in the scandal suffered
stock-price drops, the vast majority of the dozens of options
cases were filed as shareholder derivative claims, on behalf of
the company, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and proxy-
statement misstatements.

At the time, the most prolific securities class action firm was
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, the successor of Bill
Lerach's firm and the predecessor of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.
If they filed a derivative suit on behalf of a company, it meant
they could not sue the company in a securities class action.  For
this simple reason, many people, including me, did not think they
would file many options backdating derivative cases.

But they did -- and they filed a lot of them.  Not only did they
file a lot of them, they defeated motions to dismiss and achieved
settlements involving unprecedented types of corporate governance
reforms and plaintiffs' attorneys' fee awards.  Their large fee
awards increased the fee awards of smaller plaintiffs' firms.  By
the time they were finished, the plaintiffs' firms that filed
options backdating cases made a mint.

Then, toward the end of the options backdating scandal, the credit
crisis happened and started a new wave of shareholder litigation,
this time both securities class actions and shareholder derivative
actions.  The plaintiffs' bar had a war chest and was ready for
battle.  The larger plaintiffs' firms won lead plaintiff roles in
the mega securities class actions and also represented plaintiffs
in large individual actions.

While that was going on, the Chinese reverse-merger scandal
happened.  That created a new breed of securities class action
plaintiffs' firms.  Historically, the Reform Act's lead plaintiff
provisions incentivized plaintiffs' firms to recruit institutional
investors to serve as plaintiffs.  For the most part,
institutional investors have retained the larger plaintiffs'
firms, and smaller plaintiffs' firms have been left with
individual investor clients who usually can't beat out
institutions for the lead-plaintiff role.  At the same time,
securities class action economics tightened in all but the largest
cases, placing a premium on experience, efficiency, and scale.  As
a result, larger firms filed the lion's share of the cases, and
smaller plaintiffs' firms were unable to compete effectively for
the lead plaintiff role, or make much money on their litigation
investments.

The China cases changed this dynamic.  Smaller plaintiffs' firms
initiated the lion's share of them, as the larger firms were
swamped with credit-crisis cases and likely were deterred by the
relatively small damages, potentially high discovery costs, and
uncertain insurance and company financial resources.  Moreover,
these cases fit smaller firms' capabilities well; nearly all of
the cases had "lawsuit blueprints" such as auditor resignations
and/or short-seller reports, thereby reducing the smaller firms'
investigative costs and increasing their likelihood of surviving a
motion to dismiss (and thus reducing the likelihood of dismissal
and no recovery).  The dismissal rate was indeed low, and limited
insurance and company resources prompted early settlements in
amounts that, while on the low side, yielded good outcomes for the
smaller plaintiffs' firms.

With these recoveries, these firms built up momentum that kept
them going even after the wave of China cases subsided.  For the
last several years, following almost every "lawsuit blueprint"
announcement, a smaller firm has launched an "investigation" of
the company, and they have initiated an increasing number of
cases.  Like the China cases, these cases tend to be against
smaller companies.  Thus, smaller plaintiffs' firms have
discovered a class of cases -- cases against smaller companies
that have suffered well-publicized problems (reducing the
plaintiffs' firms' investigative costs) for which they can win the
lead plaintiff role and that they can prosecute at a sufficient
profit margin.

As smaller firms have gained further momentum, they have expanded
the cases they initiate beyond "lawsuit blueprint" cases -- and
they continue to initiate and win lead-plaintiff contests
primarily in cases against smaller companies brought by retail
investors.  The securities litigation landscape now clearly
consists of a combination of two different types of cases: smaller
cases brought by a set of smaller plaintiffs' firms on behalf of
retail investors, and larger cases pursued by the larger
plaintiffs' firms on behalf of institutional investors.  This
change is now more than five years old, and appears to be here to
stay.

Plaintiffs firms thus have us surrounded -- no public company can
fly under the radar anymore.  Plaintiffs' firms of all types have
made a lot of money over the past decade.  They're now filing a
record number of cases, even subtracting out the federal-court
merger cases.  And on the whole, they're strong lawyers, with some
genuine superstars among them.

Yet, though expanded, the number of firms is small, with about a
dozen in the core group.  This gives them the practical ability to
take common strategic, economic, and legal positions -- even if
they don't always see eye-to-eye or get along.

"In Part II, I'll analyze the current state of the defense bar,
explain why defendants are losing the war despite winning key
legislative and judicial battles, and propose a solution to the
mismatch between the plaintiffs' bar and defense bar.  Please stay
tuned." [GN]



                         *********


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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *