CAR_Public/170601.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Thursday, June 1, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 109



                            Headlines

1416 CHANCELLOR: Herzfeld Seeks Certification of Dancers Class
1ST STOP: Faces "Jernigan" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
3D SYSTEMS: Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration Denied
AARON'S INC: "Byrd" Plaintiffs' New Expert Report Tossed
AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Suit Pending

AARON'S INC: Class Certification Bid in "Peterson" Suit Denied
AJM PACKAGING: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Copeland" Suit
AKORN INC: "Ochoa" Suit Claims Merger Deal Inadequate
ALIBABA GROUP: Subpoenas Records in Pension Fund Suit
ALICE AND OLIVIA: "Bernstein" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime

AMEDISYS INC: Parties in Securities Case Agree to Mediate Again
ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends "Wang" Class Suit
ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends "Meller" Class Suit
ATLAS VAN: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Mervyn" Class Suit
BAYVILLE AVENUE: Papa Seeks Minimum Pay, Unpaid Overtime & Tips

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: "Stevens" Class Suit Stayed
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Defending Against "Turner" Suit
CALPERS: "Jackson" Suit Alleges Fund Mismanagement
CAPES SOKOL: Rectenwald Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement
CELADON GROUP: "Teasdale" Sues Over Share Price Drop

CENTRAL FREIGHT: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Henry" Suit
CONNECTICUT, USA: Liberian Community Appeals Ruling to 2nd Cir.
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Parties Continue to Negotiate Deal
COOK COUNTY, IL: A&G Foods Sues Over Unauthorized Court Fees
CRAFT BREW: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint

CTI BIOPHARMA: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Not Yet Set
DICK'S SPORTING: "McKenna" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
DOLGENCORP LLC: Certification of Class Sought in "Alla" Suit
DUNDRUM LLC: Still Facing "Adsit" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
EI DU PONT: Certification of "Chance" Action Under FLSA Sought

EZCORP INC: New York Court Dismissed Securities Litigation
EZCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Texas Suit Remains Pending
FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Holt" Suit
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Class Action Ruling
FORA FINANCIAL: Dolemba's Bid to Certify Class to Be Heard Aug. 1

KOHN LAW: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Dunbar" Suit Brought Under FDCPA
GENVEC INC: Proceedings in "Hoose" Securities Suit Stayed
HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE: Garcia Sues Over Overtime, Missed Breaks
HOME NURSE: Faces "Gonzalez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
INTELEOS INC: Miller's Prelim. Injunction Bid Denied

INTERIOR MAGIC: Continues to Face "Bradford" FLSA Suit in Tex.
JAB CLOTHIERS: "Akinmeji" Suit Alleges Phony Discounts
JIVE SOFTWARE: "Yoshimura" Claims Short-changed on Merger Deal
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Seeks Review of Decision in "Senne" Suit
KIDDS RESTAURANTS: Faces "Kroboth" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

MALLINCKRODT PLC: Ct. Consolidates Four Relates Cases
MDL 2326: 43,000 Product Liability Cases Filed as of April 26
MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS: "Brown" Class Action Pending in Texas
MIDLAND CREDIT: Woods Moves for Class Certification Under FDCPA
MIDLAND FUNDING: Appeals Ruling in "Garcia" Suit to Third Circuit

NEBRASKA, USA: Class Suit Certification Sought in "Johnson" Suit
OSTERKAMP TRANS: "Sanchez" Suit Hits Illegal Background Checks
PACE OPPORTUNITY: Class of Employees Certified in "Ellison" Suit
PETTA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Graybill" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Laws
PINO GROCERY: Perez Alleges FLSA & NY Labor Law Violations

PNC FINANCIAL: Supreme Court Denied Petition for Certiorari
PNC FINANCIAL: Arbitrators Award $24 Million to Plaintiffs
PRESBYTERIAN RETIREMENT: Steele Seeks OT Pay & Retaliation Claim
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,352 Broin II Lawsuits Pending at March 31
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 26 Smoking Class Action Cases Pending

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Four "Lights" Class-Action Cases Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Stipulation Dismisses RAI from Consumer Action
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Vapor's Bid to Dismiss "Harris" Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: July 2018 Hearing on Class Certification Bid
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" and "Parsons" Cases Still Dormant

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Class Actions Remain Pending in Canada
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Petition for Rehearing in ERISA Case Held
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: BAT Asks North Carolina Court for Review
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Says Lorillard Required to Indemnify Loews
RITE AID: "Herring" Suit Remains Stayed

RITE AID: Settlement Reached in "Indergit" Case
RITE AID: Defending California Wage-and-Hour Laws
RITE AID: Settlement of "Fenley" Case Has Final Approval
RITE AID: January 2018 Trial Set in "Hall" Case
ROLLING BONES: Fails to Pay Store Manager OT, "Inhofer" Suit Says

ROSA'S FIRST: "Salazar" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
SAILS GROUP: Background Checks Done Illegally, Robertson Says
SAINTS & SANTOS: Laborers Class Certified in "Castellanos" Suit
SERVICE KING: Morales Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements
SEVENTY SEVEN: Faces "Scarantino" Suit Over Patterson-Uti Merger

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: AirTran Appeals Class Certification Order
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Discovery Underway in Suit over Higher Fares
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: To Defend Against Class Suit in Canada
STAAR SURGICAL: Still Faces "Todd" Stockholder Securities Suit
SWISSPORT FUELING: Holmes Seeks Conditional FLSA Certification

TEREX CORPORATION: Filed Motions to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
TEXAS, USA: Smith's Bid to Certify Class of Muslim Inmates Denied
TPUSA INC: Fails to Pay Call Center Agents Overtime, Rolle Claims
TRANS UNION: Faces "Taylor" Class Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
UNITED PARCEL: Faces "Ortez" Suit Under FLSA & State Wage Laws

VANCO HEALTH: Faces "Macklin" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
VIVUS INC: Ninth Circuit Has Yet to Schedule Oral Argument
WESTERN DENTAL: Illegally Debits Clients' Accounts, King Claims



                            *********


1416 CHANCELLOR: Herzfeld Seeks Certification of Dancers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JESSICA HERZFELD, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. 1416 CHANCELLOR,
INC., f/d/b/a THE GOLD CLUB, APM Club, Inc. d/b/a/ THE GOLD CLUB,
ANTHONY P. MILICIA, and DOES 1 Through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:14-cv-04966-MAK (E.D. Pa.), seeks to certify this class:

     All current and former Dancers who have worked for
     Defendants at Gold Club in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
     at any time since August 26, 2011 (the "PA Class").

Ms. Herzfeld also seeks the appointment of Gary F. Lynch, Esq., of
Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=x00hLrNt

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew J. Hoffer, Esq.
          SHAFER & ASSOICATES, P.C.
          3800 Capital City Blvd., Suite 2
          Lansing, MI 48906
          Telephone: (517) 886-6560
          E-mail: matt@bradshaferlaw.com

               - and -

          Pasquale J. Colavita, Esq.
          PASQUALE J. COLAVITA, P.C.
          1026 Winter Street, Suite 300B
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 351-5300
          E-mail: pcolavita@gmail.com


1ST STOP: Faces "Jernigan" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Jernigan, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 1st Stop Recovery, Inc., a Florida for
Profit Corporation, and Judith Marra-Ptashinski, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00265-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., May 15,
2017), alleges that Defendants have violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by requiring Plaintiff, and those similarly
situated, to work while not clocked in and failing to pay
Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, overtime at time-and-one-
half of the Plaintiff's regular rate whenever Plaintiff, and those
similarly situated, worked in excess of 40 hours per work week.

Defendants provide repossession vehicle towing service for
financial institutions.  Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an in-
office repossession agent/office assistant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul M. Botros, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: 954 318 0268
     Fax: 954 333 3517
     E-mail: PBotros@forthepeople.com


3D SYSTEMS: Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
3D Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Defendants' motion for
reconsideration has been denied.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been
named as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder class
action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina. The consolidated action is styled KBC
Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No.
0:15-cv-02393-MGL. The Amended Consolidated Complaint (the
"Complaint"), which was filed on December 9, 2015, alleges that
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions
and that the former officers are control persons under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint was filed on behalf of
stockholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
between October 29, 2013, and May 5, 2015 and seeks monetary
damages on behalf of the purported class.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety
on January 14, 2016, which was denied by Memorandum Opinion and
Order dated July 25, 2016 (the "Order").

Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order on
August 4, 2016, which was denied by Order dated February 24, 2017.

3D Systems Corporation provides comprehensive 3D printing
solutions, including 3D printers, print materials, software,
on-demand manufacturing services and digital design tools.


AARON'S INC: "Byrd" Plaintiffs' New Expert Report Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way
Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and
Designerware, LLC, Case No. 1:11-cv-00101 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Cathy
Bissoon on May 4, 2017, holding that Judge Susan Baxter's order
granting Aaron's, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' New Expert
Report is affirmed.

Meanwhile, Aaron's said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court's decision
on plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case, Crystal
and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John
Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, remains
pending.

In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC,
filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court,
Western District of Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the Company
and its independently owned and operated franchisee Aspen Way
Enterprises ("Aspen Way") knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy
in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA")
and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a
putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen
Way's use of a software program called "PC Rental Agent."
Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims
under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, seeks an
injunction, and names additional independently owned and operated
Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages as well as injunctive relief.

In March 2014, the United States District Court dismissed all
claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises,
LLC, dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and
abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants, and denied
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action, but denied the
Company's motion to dismiss the claims alleging ECPA violations.

In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the denial of class certification on the grounds
stated by the District Court, and remanded the case back to the
District Court for further consideration of that and the other
elements necessary for class certification.

On January 24, 2017, final briefs were submitted on the remand of
plaintiffs' motion for class certification with the District
Court, and oral arguments were held on March 30, 2017. The Court's
decision is pending.

Aaron's, Inc. (the "Company") is an omnichannel provider of lease-
purchase solutions.


AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company's motions
to dismiss and strike certain allegations in the case, Michael
Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation,
Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and
Designerware, LLC, remain pending.

In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial
Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees
and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles
Superior Court, plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and
its independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial
Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for
unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and
violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims
arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The
plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages as well as
certification of a putative California class.

In April 2013, the Company removed this matter to federal court.
In May 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this litigation
pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike certain
allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently stayed the
case.

The Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain allegations
remain pending. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
lift the stay, which was denied in July 2015.

Aaron's, Inc. (the "Company") is an omnichannel provider of lease-
purchase solutions.


AARON'S INC: Class Certification Bid in "Peterson" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the case, Michael Peterson v. Aaron's,
Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., has been denied.

In Michael Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, plaintiffs claim that the
Company and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and
the privacy of plaintiffs' law firm's clients in violation of the
ECPA and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek
certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based
these claims on Aspen Way's use of PC Rental Agent software. The
Court has dismissed all claims except a claim for aiding and
abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification which the Court denied on January 25, 2017.

Aaron's, Inc. (the "Company") is an omnichannel provider of lease-
purchase solutions.


AJM PACKAGING: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Copeland" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DARIUS COPELAND v. A.J.M.
PACKAGING CORPORATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-10216-RHC-SDD (E.D.
Mich.), asks the Court to conditionally certify the proposed
collective FLSA class defined as:

     All hourly non-exempt employees that were employed with
     Defendant at any of its manufacturing locations at any time
     in the past three years.

The action is for unpaid wages brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and filed as a collective action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.  The Plaintiff filed the action on
January 24, 2017, to challenge the Defendant's alleged enterprise-
wide policy and practice of failing to pay overtime wages for all
hours of work in excess of 40 in a workweek and for failure to pay
a minimum wage for hours 41-45 worked in a work week.

Mr. Copeland also asks the Court to:

   (1) implement a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
       Plaintiff's FLSA claims are sent (via US Mail and e-mail)
       to all hourly warehouse workers for the past three years;

   (2) require the Defendant to identify potential opt-in
       plaintiffs; and

   (3) require the Notice to be posted in the Defendant's
       workplaces (away from view of the public but in a common
       place for its employees to view).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=d7DTmTL6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq.
          FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
          25892 Woodward Ave.
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 542-6300
          E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com

               - and -

          Megan A. Bonanni, Esq.
          PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, P.C.
          117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398-9800
          E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert J. Finkel, Esq.
          Michael L. Weissman, Esq.
          FINKEL WHITEFIELD SELIK
          32300 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 200
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334-1567
          Telephone: (248) 855-6500
          E-mail: rfinkel@fwslaw.com
                  mweissman@fwslaw.com


AKORN INC: "Ochoa" Suit Claims Merger Deal Inadequate
-----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Ochoa, Individually and on Behalf All Others Similarly
Situated, and Derivatively on Behalf of AKORN, INC., Plaintiff, v.
John N. Kapoor, Ronald M. Johnson, Steven J. Meyer, Brian Tambi,
Alan Weinstein, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Adrienne L. Graves, Terry
A. Rappuhn, Fresenius Kabi AG, Fresenius SE & Co. KGAA and Quercus
Acquisition, Inc., Defendants and Akorn, Inc., nominal Defendant.,
Case 2017-CH-06928 (Ill. Cir., May 11, 2017) seeks to
preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from proceeding
with, consummating or closing the acquisition of Akorn by
Fresenius, rescissory damages in case it pushes through, costs of
this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities and Exchange Act.

Fresenius would acquire Akorn for roughly $4.3 billion. Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, Akorn stockholders will receive
only $34 in cash for each share of Akorn common stock they hold
which allegedly undervalues the company.  The deal adopts
preclusive deal protection devices that effectively prevents any
alternative bidder from making an offer.

Akorn is a specialty pharmaceutical company that develops,
manufactures and markets specialized generic and branded
pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter drug products and animal health
products in the United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
     Craig W. Smith, Esq.
     Shane P. Sanders, Esq.
     Scott F. Templeton, Esq.
     ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
     600B Street, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 525-3990
     Fax: (619) 525-3991
     Email: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
            csmith@robbinsarroyo.com
            ssanders@robbinsarroyo.com
            stempleton@robbinsarroyo.com

             - and -

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


ALIBABA GROUP: Subpoenas Records in Pension Fund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, Chicago Laborers Pension Fund, Gary Buelow, Rustem
Nurlybayev and Michael Hercules, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, Case
No. CIV-535692 (Cal. Super., April 1, 2016), the Custodian of
Records, Columbia Partners, L.L.C. Investment Management was
issued an out of state subpoena to appear in the Delaware Superior
Court at the office of the Defendant's counsel on May 31, 2017.

On May 16, Alibaba filed a civil case before the Superior Court of
the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County (Case No. Case
No. N17M-05-186).

The California suit was brought on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased Alibaba American Depositary Shares
pursuant or traceable to the IPO. The complaint alleges violations
of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the United States Securities
Act of 1933. [BN]

Alibaba Group Holding Limited is represented by:

      Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq.
      RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
      One Rodney Square
      920 North King Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 651-7700

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
      Nancy L. Fineman, Esq.
      Camilo Artiga-Purcell, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Tel: (650) 697-6000
      Fax: (650) 697-0577
      Email: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
             jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
             nfineman@cpmlegal.com
             cartigapurcell@cpmlegal.com

             - and -

      John H. George, Esq.
      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      David William Hall, Esq.
      Christopher Paul Seefer, Esq.
      ROBBINS, GELLER, RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center, Suite 1800
      One Montgomery Street
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 288-4545
      Fax: (415) 288-4534
      Email: jgeorge@rgrdlaw.com
             shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
             dhall@rgrdlaw.com
             chriss@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
      Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
      Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
      BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
      La Jolla, California 92037
      Tel: (858) 914-2001
      Fax: (858) 914-2002

             - and -

      Alexandra P. Summer, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      94010  Burlingame, CA
      Tel: (650) 697-6000
      Fax: (650) 697-0577
      Email: asummer@cpmlegal.com


ALICE AND OLIVIA: "Bernstein" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kalee Bernstein, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alice and Olivia
California Holdings, LLC, Alice and Olivia, LLC and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. BC661262 (Cal. Super., May 16, 2017),
seeks actual and compensatory damages, statutory penalties,
interest, costs of suit and attorney's fees, restitution and
disgorgement, injunctive relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs
of suit, prejudgment interest and such other and further relief
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Defendants operate retail stores throughout California selling
women's clothing where Bernstein worked. She claims unpaid
overtime, denied rest periods, did not receive accurate wage
statements and did not receive her final paycheck upon
termination. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq.
      Thomas H. Schelly, Esq.
      LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
      880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Fax: (310) 322-2252
      Phone: (310) 322-2211


AMEDISYS INC: Parties in Securities Case Agree to Mediate Again
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties in the
securities class action lawsuits have agreed to mediate the case
again on June 12, 2017.

Between June 10 and July 28, 2010, several putative securities
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the "District Court")
against the Company and certain of our former senior executives.
The cases were consolidated into the first-filed action Bach, et
al. v. Amedisys, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:10-cv-00395, and the
District Court appointed as co-lead plaintiffs the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico
Teachers' Retirement System (the "Co-Lead Plaintiffs"). They filed
a consolidated, amended complaint which all defendants moved to
dismiss. The District Court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss on June 28, 2012, and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed that
ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
(the "Fifth Circuit").

On October 2, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit
reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to
the District Court for further proceedings. The defendants request
for an en banc review was denied on December 29, 2014 and their
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari from the United States Supreme
Court was denied on June 29, 2015.

After remand to the District Court, the Plaintiffs were granted
leave to file a First Amended Consolidated Complaint (the "First
Amended Securities Complaint") on behalf of all purchasers or
acquirers of Amedisys' securities between August 2, 2005 and
September 30, 2011. The First Amended Securities Complaint alleges
that the Company and seven individual defendants violated Section
10(b), Section 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by materially misrepresenting the Company's financial
results and concealing a scheme to obtain higher Medicare
reimbursements and additional patient referrals by (1) providing
medically unnecessary care to patients, including certifying and
re-certifying patients for medically unnecessary 60-day treatment
episodes; (2) implementing clinical tracks such as "Balanced for
Life" and wound care programs that provided a pre-set number of
therapy visits irrespective of medical need; (3) "upcoding"
patients' Medicare forms to attribute a "primary diagnosis" to a
medical condition associated with higher billing rates; and (4)
providing improper and illegal remuneration to physicians to
obtain patient certifications or re-certifications. The First
Amended Securities Complaint seeks certification of the case as a
class action and an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
interest and an award of attorneys' fees.

All defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Securities
Complaint on December 15, 2015. While that motion was pending the
parties agreed to mediate the case. This mediation was not
successful. On August 19, 2016, the District Court issued its
ruling on the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing with
prejudice all claims against two former officers, dismissing all
except Section 20(a) claims against three former officers, and
denying all other relief.

The Company and four individual defendants then filed their
answers to the First Amended Securities Complaint on October 20,
2016. The independent executrix of the estate of William F. Borne,
who was substituted as a defendant in the case after Mr. Borne's
death, filed her answer on February 6, 2017. The case is currently
in the early stages of discovery. The parties have agreed to
mediate the case again on June 12, 2017.

Because the case is in the early stages of litigation, we are
unable to assess the probable outcome or reasonably estimate the
potential liability, if any, arising from the securities
litigation described above. The Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend itself in the securities litigation matter but,
if decided adverse to the Company, its impact could be material.
No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the
securities matter described above or the impact of any of the
inquiry or litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which
could be material, individually or in the aggregate.

Amedisys is a provider of high-quality in-home healthcare and
related services to the chronic, co-morbid, aging American
population, with approximately 75% and 79% of the Company's
revenue derived from Medicare for the three-month periods ended
March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.


ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends "Wang" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend itself in the case, Wang v. Arrowhead
Research Corp., et al.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California regarding certain public statements in connection with
the Company's hepatitis B drug research.  The consolidated class
action, initially filed as Wang v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et
al., No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 10, 2014), and
Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07911
(C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 13, 2014), asserted claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought
damages in an unspecified amount.

Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative actions
captioned Weisman v. Anzalone et al., No. 2:14-cv-08982 (C.D.
Cal., filed Nov. 20, 2014), Bernstein (Backus) v. Anzalone, et
al., No. 2:14-cv-09247 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2014); and
Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00446 (C.D. Cal., filed
Jan. 22, 2015), were filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary
duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the
facts underlying the securities claims.

An additional consolidated derivative action asserting similar
claims is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, initially
filed as Bacchus v. Anzalone, et al., (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 5,
2015); and Jackson v. Anzalone, et al. (L.A. Super., filed Mar.
16, 2015).

Each of these suits seeks damages in unspecified amounts and some
seek various forms of injunctive relief.  On October 7, 2016, the
federal district court dismissed the consolidated class action
with prejudice.

On October 10, 2016 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the
consolidated class action to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  The Weisman and Johnson derivative actions
have been dismissed without prejudice.  The Bernstein derivative
action remains pending and is stayed pending the related
consolidated class action.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself in each of these matters.  The Company
makes provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a
liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably
estimated.  No such liability has been recorded related to these
matters.  The Company does not expect these matters to have a
material effect on its Consolidated Financial Statements. With
regard to legal fees, such as attorney fees related to these
matters or any other legal matters, the Company recognizes such
costs as incurred.

Arrowhead develops novel drugs to treat intractable diseases by
silencing the genes that cause them.


ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends "Meller" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend itself in the case, Meller v.
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

The Company and certain executive officers were named as
defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
regarding certain public statements in connection with the
Company's drug research programs.

The consolidated class action, initially filed as Meller v.
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-08505 (C.D.
Cal, filed Nov. 15, 2016 ), Siegel v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-8954 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2016),
and Unz v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.2:17-cv-
00310 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 13, 2017) asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
regarding certain public statements in connection with the
Company's drug research programs and seek damages in an
unspecified amount.

Additionally, a putative stockholder derivative action captioned
Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., (Los Angeles County Superior Court,
filed January 19, 2017) asserting substantially similar claims is
pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court and is stayed pending
the related consolidated class action.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself in these matters.  The Company makes
provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a
liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably
estimated.  No such liability has been recorded related to these
matters.  The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this
matter and cannot accurately estimate any potential liability the
Company may incur or the impact of the results of this matter on
the Company. With regard to legal fees, such as attorney fees
related to these matters or any other legal matters, the Company
recognizes such costs as incurred.

Arrowhead develops novel drugs to treat intractable diseases by
silencing the genes that cause them.


ATLAS VAN: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Mervyn" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Thomas Mervyn filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Thomas Mervyn v. Atlas Van Lines, Incorporated,
et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-03587, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court has stricken the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class
certification last year.

The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Mervyn v. Atlas Van
Lines, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 17-2036, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before June 26, 2017, for Thomas
Mervyn.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant THOMAS MERVYN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Andrew Szot, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          E-mail: aszot@millerlawllc.com

Defendants-Appellees ATLAS VAN LINES, INCORPORATED; and ACE WORLD
WIDE MOVING & STORAGE COMPANY, INC., individually and on behalf of
all others similary situated, are represented by:

          Justin Weiner, Esq.
          MOLOLAMKEN LLP
          300 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 450-6700
          E-mail: jweiner@mololamken.com


BAYVILLE AVENUE: Papa Seeks Minimum Pay, Unpaid Overtime & Tips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriella Papa and Alfredo Montero, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bayville Avenue
Hospitality Management, Inc., 12 Bayville Avenue Corp., 12
Bayville Avenue Restaurants, Inc., Long Island Hospitality
Management, Inc., Donald R. Finley and any other related entities,
Defendants, Case No. 604337/2017 (N.Y. Sup., May 16, 2017), seeks
to recover compensation, including unpaid wages and tips owed,
plus liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate a restaurant and catering venues commonly known
as Breaker's Sports Bar and Grill and Shipwreck Tavern where
Plaintiffs worked as waiters. Defendants allegedly paid below the
applicable minimum wage rate, withheld tip without providing
notices and failed to pay proper overtime rate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550
      Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
             jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
             bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: "Stevens" Class Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the class action
lawsuit by Teresa L. Stevens remains stayed.

The Company said, "On or about January 12, 2016, Teresa L. Stevens
filed a claim against us and three other defendants asserting for
herself and on behalf of a putative class of similarly-situated
women, that she was harmed by a vaginal mesh implant that she
alleges contained a counterfeit or adulterated resin product that
we imported from China. The complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
before the same Court that is hearing the mesh MDL. The complaint,
which alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO) violations, fraud, misrepresentation, deceptive trade
practices and unjust enrichment, seeks both equitable relief and
damages under state and federal law."

On January 26, 2016, the Court issued an order staying the case
and directing the plaintiff to submit information to allow the FDA
to issue a determination with respect to her allegations.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Defending Against "Turner" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is
defending against a class action lawsuit by Carolyn Turner.

The Company said, "On February 27, 2017, Carolyn Turner filed a
complaint against us and five other defendants asserting for
herself and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated
women, that she was harmed by a vaginal mesh implant that she
alleges contained a counterfeit or adulterated resin product that
we imported from China. The complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division and alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), negligence, strict liability,
breach of an express or implied warranty, intentional and
negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment. Ms.
Turner served this complaint against the Company on April 7, 2017.
We deny the plaintiff's allegations and intend to defend ourselves
vigorously."


CALPERS: "Jackson" Suit Alleges Fund Mismanagement
--------------------------------------------------
Jason Jackson, an individual, and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. California Public Employees'
Retirement System, Board of Administration of California Public
Employees' Retirement System, Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
BC661500 (Cal. Super., May 16, 2017), seeks recovery of damages
for breach of fiduciary duty, rescission of contract and
restitution with interest, consequential damages including
expenses incurred, an accounting of all monies that Plaintiffs and
class members have paid, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief
in breach of fiduciary duties.

Defendants constitute a public retirement association authorized
by the California Constitution and manages the service retirement
of police officers, deputy sheriffs, firefighters, correctional
officers, or other public "safety" or similar employees who are
state or local employees.

The complaint contends that Defendants risked loss of value of the
investment by failing to calculate the investment so that it is
"cost neutral" and is "present value", failing to calculate the
investment so that there is no offset, failing to provide
commensurate increases for all investments, investing in military
service credit, Additional Retirement Service Credit and Present
Value Service Credit despite knowledge of an increased risk of
financial loss associated with injury of its members. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Michael Jensen, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOHN MICHAEL JENSEN
      11500 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 550
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Tel: (310)312-1100


CAPES SOKOL: Rectenwald Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL RECTENWALD and
MIRANDA RECTENWALD, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. CAPES, SOKOL, GOODMAN & SARACHAN, P.C., Case
No. 4:16-cv-00676-RLW (E.D. Mo.), moves the Court to enter an
order:

   1. preliminarily certifying a class of individuals for
      settlement purposes as set forth in the parties' proposed
      settlement agreement.  The settlement Class comprises of:

      all individuals in the state of Missouri to whom Defendant
      sent a letter based on the Template1 in connection with the
      collection of a consumer debt on or after May 13, 2015
      through the preliminary approval date;

   2. preliminarily approving the Agreement pursuant to Rule 23
      of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   3. conditionally certifying the Plaintiffs as the
      named-representatives of the Class;

   4. conditionally certifying the Plaintiffs' attorneys as
      counsel for the Class;

   5. approving the form of the proposed class notice and the
      parties' proposed method of distribution of the Notice to
      the Class, as set forth in the Agreement; and

   6. setting a final fairness hearing to determine whether the
      proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The Defendant is alleged to have violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act with respect to the debt collection letters it sent
to Missouri consumers.  In particular, Michael and Miranda
Rectenwald allege that the Defendant failed to provide proper
disclosures mandated by the FDCPA regarding how consumers may
dispute the validity of the debts they are alleged to owe, and
that the Defendant included other language that overshadowed or
was inconsistent with the consumer's right to dispute the debt.

According to the Motion, the parties have identified 207 other
class members through discovery. Class members, who do not exclude
themselves from the settlement will receive a pro-rata share of
the $13,000 set aside in the settlement fund.  Thus, if no class
member opts out, each class member would receive $62.80.  Class
members will not need to submit a claim form, or any other
documentation, to receive a settlement payment.

In addition, the Agreement provides that the Defendant will
separately pay $1,000 to Mr. Rectenwald and $1,000 to Ms.
Rectenwald in statutory damages, plus an additional $1,000 to each
of them for their service to the Class.  The Defendant also will
separately pay the costs of notice and administration of the
settlement, plus an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to class
counsel, subject to Court approval.  The Agreement also requires
direct mail notice to the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mI5aAOaC

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Anthony LaCroix, Esq.
          LACROIX LAW FIRM, LLC
          406 W. 34th Street, Suite 810
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 399-4380
          E-mail: tony@lacroixlawkc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          R.C. Wuestling, Esq.
          Susan M. Dimond, Esq.
          WUESTLING & JAMES, L.C.
          720 Olive Street, Suite 2720
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 421-6500
          Facsimile: (314) 421-5556
          E-mail: wuestling@wuestlginandjames.com
                  dimond@wuestlingandjames.com


CELADON GROUP: "Teasdale" Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Nicolas Teasdale, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Celadon Group, Inc., Bobby L.
Peavler and Paul A. Will, Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-03319 (S.D.
N.Y., May 17, 2017) seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses in this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and experts' fees and other costs and disbursements and such other
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Celadon provides long-haul, full-truckload freight service across
the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Its subsidiary, Celadon
Trucking Service, Inc., also provides supply chain management
solutions such as warehousing and dedicated fleet services, as
well as freight brokerage services.

Defendants failed to disclose that Celadon's equity contribution
to its joint venture with Element Financial Corp. was $68.2
million, rather than the $100 million contribution as reported in
its public filings, that Celadon is being actively investigated by
the SEC, that its financial statement for quarter ended December
31, 2016 could not be relied upon.

Shares of the Company fell $0.85 per share or approximately 14%
from its previous closing price to close at $5.40 per share on
April 5, 2017, damaging investors including the Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James S. Notis, Esq.
      Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
      Tower 56
      126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 905-0509
      Fax: (212) 905-0508
      Email: jnotis@gardylaw.com
             jsarnelli@gardylaw.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      Bradley J. Vettraino
      Jacob A. Walker
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 398-5600
      Fax: (617) 507-6020
      Email: Jeff@blockesq.com
             Bradley@blockesq.com


CENTRAL FREIGHT: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Henry" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Central Freight Lines, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling relating to the lawsuit entitled Rickey Henry v.
Central Freight Lines, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00280-JAM-EFB, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California,
Sacramento.

The lawsuit is brought over labor-related issues.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was
remanded from the District Court to the Superior Court for the
County of Sacramento.

The appellate case is captioned as Rickey Henry v. Central Freight
Lines, Inc., Case No. 17-15993, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Oral argument in the Appellate Case is set for June 13, 2017, at
9:00 a.m.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee RICKEY HENRY, an individual, on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          E-mail: aj@bamlawlj.com
                  norm@bamlawlj.com

               - and -

          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL & MARKHAM
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          E-mail: kyle@bamlawca.com

Defendant-Appellant CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC., is represented
by:

          Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
          Jonathan Liu, Esq.
          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          E-mail: tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com
                  jonathan.liu@ogletreedeakins.com
                  spencer.skeen@odnss.com


CONNECTICUT, USA: Liberian Community Appeals Ruling to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liberian Community Association of Connecticut, Ryan Boyko,
Emmanuel Kamara, Louise Mensah-Sieh, Assunta Nimley-Phillips, Mary
Jean O, Victor Sieh, Laura Skrip, Bishop Harmon Yalartai and
Esther Yalartai, plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled LIBERIAN
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTICUT, et al. v. GOVERNOR DANNEL
MALLOY, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00201(AVC), in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven), filed an appeal
from:

   * a District Court ruling dated March 30, 2017;
   * a District Court ruling dated August 1, 2016; and
   * a District Court judgment dated May 3, 2017.

Dannel P. Malloy is the Governor of Connecticut.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs defined the class as:

     "all individuals who will travel or intend to travel from
      Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea ("Ebola-affected
      countries") to Connecticut and are at risk of Defendants
      Malloy and Pino subjecting them to an unlawful and
      scientifically unjustified quarantine, pursuant to
      Defendants' quarantine policies and practice."

The appellate case is captioned as Liberian Community Association
v. Malloy, Case No. 17-1558, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Liberian Community Association of
Connecticut, Louise Mensah-Sieh, Victor Sieh, Emmanuel Kamara,
Assunta Nimley-Phillips, Laura Skrip, Ryan Boyko, Esther Yalartai,
Bishop Harmon Yalartai and Mary Jean O, on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael Joel Wishnie, Esq.
          YALE LAW SCHOOL
          P. O. Box 209090
          New Haven, CT 06520
          Telephone: (203) 436-4780
          E-mail: michael.wishnie@yale.edu

Defendants-Appellees Dannel P. Malloy, Governor; and Raul Pino,
Acting Commissioner of Public Health; and Jewel Mullen, Former
Commissioner of Public Health, are represented by:

          Kimberly P. Massicotte, Esq.
          CONNECTICUT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120
          Hartford, CT 06141
          Telephone: (860) 808-5318
          Facsimile: (860) 808-5386
          E-mail: Kimberly.Massicotte@po.state.ct.us


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Parties Continue to Negotiate Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties
continue to negotiate a possible resolution to a class action
lawsuit.

In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
District Court of Blaine county, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and
Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on
behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company.
The Petition alleged the Company improperly deducted post-
production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other
royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells
located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims,
including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees
on behalf of the proposed class.

On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed an Amended Petition that did
not add any substantive claims, but sought a "hybrid class action"
in which they sought certification of certain claims for
injunctive relief, reserving the right to seek a further class
certification on money damages in the future. Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Motion for Class Certification on January 9, 2015, that
modified the proposed class to royalty owners in Oklahoma
production from July 1, 1993, to the present (instead of 1980 to
the present) and sought certification of over 45 separate "issues"
for injunctive or declaratory relief, again, reserving the right
to seek a further class certification of money damages in the
future.

The Company responded to the petition, its amendment, and the
motions for class certification denying the allegations and
raising a number of affirmative defenses and legal arguments to
each of the claims and filings. Certain discovery was undertaken
and the "hybrid" motion was briefed by plaintiffs and the Company.

A hearing on the "hybrid" class certification was held on June 1
and 2, 2015. On June 11, 2015, the trial court certified a
"hybrid" class as requested by plaintiffs. The Company appealed
the trial court's class certification order.

On February 8, 2017, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed
the trial court's ruling on certification and remanded the case
for further proceedings. The plaintiffs filed a Petition for
Rehearing which is pending before the Oklahoma Court of Civil
Appeals.

The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the
ultimate resolution of the action will have on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the
preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of
legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties
with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and
defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of
the properties and agreements involved, the production years
involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter.

It is reasonably possible one or more events may occur in the near
term that could impact the Company's ability to estimate the
potential effect this matter could have, if any, on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows. Plaintiffs have
alleged underpayments in excess of $200 million that they may
claim as damages, which may increase with the passage of time, a
majority of which would be comprised of interest.

The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes the case meets
the requirements for a class action and continues to vigorously
defend the case. An unsuccessful mediation was conducted on
December 7, 2015.

The parties continue to negotiate a possible resolution to the
case. However, it is unclear and unforeseeable whether the
parties' efforts will result in settlement and the Company will
continue to defend the case on all merits and certification issues
and, absent settlement, intends to defend the case to a final
judgment.

Continental Resources, Inc. (the "Company") was originally formed
in 1967 and is incorporated under the laws of the State of
Oklahoma. The Company's principal business is crude oil and
natural gas exploration, development and production with
properties primarily located in the North, South, and East regions
of the United States.


COOK COUNTY, IL: A&G Foods Sues Over Unauthorized Court Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
A&G Foods, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Defendant, Case No. 2017-L-004976, (Ill. Cir., May
17, 2017), request an issuance of the Writ of Mandamus and a full
and complete accounting of all fees or charges previously
collected by the Clerk as an "E-Payment Fee" and surcharges for a
"Convenience Fee" and any other relief pursuant to the Clerks of
Courts Act.

The Clerk presently charges and collects from litigants a
surcharge of $2.95 for "E-Payment Fee" and a surcharge of $3.34 as
a "Convenience Fee" for all electronic filings both the initial
filing as well as subsequent filing in the same case. Neither is
authorized by Illinois law and are therefore a burden on the right
of the citizens of Cook County to fairly access the courts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Novoselsky, Esq.
      NOVOSELSKY LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      25 North County Street, First Floor
      Waukegan, IL 60085
      Tel: (847) 782-5800
      Email: dnovo@novoselsky.com
             service@novoselsky.com

             - and -

      Jonathan P. Novoselsky, Esq.
      JONATHAN NOVOSELSKY, P.C.
      330 Waukegan Road
      Glenview, IL 60025
      Tel (312) 286-8429
      Email: jon@jonathannovoselsky.com


CRAFT BREW: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint
---------------------------------------------------
Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company has filed
a motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint.

On February 28, 2017 and March 6, 2017, respectively, two
lawsuits, Sara Cilloni and Simone Zimmer v. Craft Brew Alliance,
Inc., and Theodore Broomfield v. Kona Brewing Co. LLC, Kona Brew
Enterprises, LLP, Kona Brewery LLC, and Craft Brew Alliance, Inc.,
were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
Division of California.

On April 7, 2017, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single
complaint under the Broomfield case. The consolidated lawsuit
purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased Kona Brewing Company beer within the relevant statute of
limitations period. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants misled
customers regarding the state in which Kona Brewing Company beers
are manufactured and in describing Kona Brewing Company beer as
"craft beer."

"We intend to vigorously defend against the foregoing action and,
on April 28, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. We
have not recorded any liabilities with respect to the claims," the
Company said.

Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. ("CBA") is the sixth largest craft
brewing company in the U.S. and a leader in brewing, branding, and
bringing to market world-class American craft beers.


CTI BIOPHARMA: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Not Yet Set
-------------------------------------------------------
CTI Biopharma Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a hearing on the
defendants' motion to dismiss has not been set in the case, In re
CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "On February 10, 2016 and February 12, 2016,
class action lawsuits entitled Ahrens v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01044 and McGlothlin v. CTI BioPharma Corp.
et al., Case No. C16-216, respectively, were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, respectively, on behalf of shareholders that purchased
or acquired the Company's securities pursuant to our September 24,
2015 public offering and/or shareholders who otherwise acquired
our stock between March 4, 2014 and February 9, 2016, inclusive."

"The complaints assert claims against the Company and certain of
our current and former directors and officers for violations of
the federal securities laws under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and
Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims
allege that the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
for the September 24, 2015 public offering contained materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations
and prospects, including with respect to the clinical trials and
prospects for pacritinib. Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims allege
that the Company's public disclosures were knowingly or recklessly
false and misleading or omitted material adverse facts, again with
a primary focus on the clinical trials and prospects for
pacritinib.

"On May 2, 2016, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Ahrens
case to the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington. The motion was unopposed and granted by the court
on May 19, 2016.

"On June 3, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate
the McGlothlin case with the Ahrens case in order to proceed as a
single consolidated proceeding. On June 13, 2016, the court
granted the motion to consolidate with the action being captioned
In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
2:16-cv-00216-RSL.

"On September 2, 2016, the court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and
Lead Counsel. On September 28, 2016, the court entered a
scheduling order, as revised by order entered December 8, 2016,
setting November 8, 2016 as the deadline to file a consolidated
class action complaint and deadlines for briefing defendants'
motion to dismiss. Briefing concluded on February 22, 2017. A
hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss has not been set.

"The consolidated class action complaint asserts claims similar to
those asserted in the initial complaints, although it no longer
asserts claims relating to the September 24, 2015 public offering,
but adds claims relating to the Company's October 27, 2015 and
December 4, 2015 public offerings. The lawsuit seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.

"We believe that the allegations contained in the complaints are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
all claims asserted therein. A reasonable estimate of the amount
of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time
and, as such, we have not recorded an accrual for any possible
loss."

CTI BioPharma Corp., together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries,
is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition,
development and commercialization of novel targeted therapies
covering a spectrum of blood-related cancers that offer a unique
benefit to patients and health care providers.


DICK'S SPORTING: "McKenna" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON MCKENNA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.,
EDWARD W. STACK and LEE J. BELITSKY, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03680 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2017), alleges that Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies in violation of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.

Specifically, Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Dick's had
overstated its adjusted EBITDA amounts; (ii) accordingly, the
Company lacked effective internal controls; and (iii) as a result
of the foregoing, Dick's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is a sporting goods retailer that
offers a broad selection of brand name sporting goods equipment,
apparel, and footwear. The Company owns and operates Golf Galaxy,
Inc., Field & Stream and other specialty chain stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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


DOLGENCORP LLC: Certification of Class Sought in "Alla" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Seit Alla moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit captioned SEIT ALLA, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DOLGENCORP, LLC (d/b/a
DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION), Case No. 2:17-cv-00657-PP (E.D.
Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
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).

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, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

As the Motion 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 Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also wants to be appointed as class representative,
and the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p44oxTSf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Cynthia St. Amant, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524-5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524-5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
                  c.stamant@kanner-law.com


DUNDRUM LLC: Still Facing "Adsit" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dundrum, LLC continues to face the lawsuit captioned Jennifer L.
Adsit, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Dundrum, LLC and Law Offices of James R. Vaughan PC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00110, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington last March 23, 2017.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Acts.

According to the complaint, Defendant sent a letter to the
Plaintiff which attempts to harass and intimidate her into paying
otherwise exempt money.

In conjunction with the March 23, 2016 letter to Plaintiff,
Defendant also sent the Plaintiff a "Notice of Garnishment and of
your rights" and such notice falsely stated that Plaintiff was
only entitled to a $200 cash exemption, it adds.

Defendant Dundrum is a Washington State corporation engaged in the
business of collecting debts within Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
   Kirk D. Miller P.S.
   421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 660
   Spokane, WA 99201
   Tel: (509) 413-1494
   Fax: (509) 413-1724


EI DU PONT: Certification of "Chance" Action Under FLSA Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify as a nationwide collective
action the lawsuit captioned GENE R. CHANCE v. E. I. DU PONT DE
NEMOURS AND CO., Case No. 1:16-cv-00376-MAC (E.D. Tex.), to cover
all of DuPont's Legacy facilities as follows:

     All current and former hourly or salaried non-exempt
     employees who worked for Defendant between September 2, 2013
     and the present who received a scheduled overtime allowance,
     including both day shift and night shift. If you previously
     received a payment from DuPont, you are still entitled to
     opt into this lawsuit to receive any additional amount of
     overtime wages and matching amounts of wages payable to you
     as liquidated damages under the law.

The lawsuit is a putative collective action brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Motion addresses recognition of
the matter as a collective action for purposes of the FLSA and
requests approval of written notification to putative collective
action members, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to direct the Defendant to
produce the names and addresses of all potential collective action
members and that the proposed notices and consent forms be sent
out.  The Plaintiff further asks that the notice advise employees
of the prohibition against the Defendant retaliating against or
coercing potential collective action members as to the decision of
whether to join into this matter.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Werner, Esq.
          REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN, LLP
          801 Laurel Street
          P.O. Box 26005
          Beaumont, TX 77720-6005
          Telephone: (409) 838-1000
          Facsimile: (409) 833-8236
          E-mail: jwerner@rmqlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          M.C. Carrington, Esq.
          MEHAFFYWEBER, P.C.
          2615 Calder Ave.
          Post Office Box 16
          Beaumont, TX 77704
          Telephone: (409) 835-5011
          Facsimile: (409) 835-5177
          E-mail: MCCarrington@mehaffyweber.com


EZCORP INC: New York Court Dismissed Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Ezcorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court has entered
an order to approve the settlement and dismiss the federal
securities litigation in New York.

On August 22, 2014, Jason Close, a purported holder of Class A
Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other
similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock,
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York styled Close v. EZCORP, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC). That lawsuit named as defendants
EZCORP, Inc., Paul. E. Rothamel (the Company's former Chief
Executive Officer) and Mark Kuchenrither (the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer). That lawsuit was consolidated with a
similar lawsuit filed in the same court on October 17, 2014 by the
Automotive Machinists Pension Plan and styled Automotive
Machinists Pension Plan v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-
8349-ALC). On November 18, 2014, the court consolidated the two
lawsuits under the caption In Re EZCORP, Inc. Securities
Litigation (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC).

The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint asserted
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
alleging generally that:

* EZCORP and the officer defendants issued false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding the Company's online lending
operations in the U.K. (Cash Genie) and Cash Genie's compliance
history;

* EZCORP and the officer defendants issued false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding the nature of the Company's
consulting relationship with Madison Park LLC (as entity owned by
Mr. Cohen) and the process the Board of Directors used in agreeing
to it;

* EZCORP's financial statements were false and misleading, and
violated GAAP and SEC rules and regulations, by failing to
properly recognize impairment charges with respect to the
Company's investment in Albemarle & Bond; and

* Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling
persons of EZCORP, were aware of and controlled the Company's
alleged false and misleading statements and omissions.

On March 31, 2016, the Court, in response to the defendants'
motions to dismiss, dismissed the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
claims insofar as they were based on (1) the alleged misstatements
about the nature of and approval process related to the Company's
consulting relationship with Madison Park, (2) the alleged
misstatements regarding the impairment of the Company's investment
in Albemarle & Bond, and (3) some of the alleged misstatements
about Cash Genie. The Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims survived
the motions to dismiss insofar as they were based on certain
alleged misstatements about Cash Genie. The Section 20(a) claims
also survived the motions to dismiss.

On November 23, 2016, the parties agreed to a mediated settlement
of all remaining claims. The settlement provides for the payment
of $5.9 million by the defendants, which was covered by applicable
directors' and officers' liability insurance. Following a
Settlement Hearing on April 25, 2017, the Court entered an order
to approve the settlement and dismiss the case.

Ezcorp, Inc. is a provider of pawn loans in the United States and
Mexico.


EZCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Texas Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Ezcorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a motion to dismiss a
federal securities litigation in Texas remains pending.

The Company said, "On July 20, 2015, Wu Winfred Huang, a purported
holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on
behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting
Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas styled Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS). The complaint names as defendants
EZCORP, Inc., Stuart I. Grimshaw (our chief executive officer) and
Mark E. Kuchenrither (our former chief financial officer) and
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

"The original complaint related to the Company's announcement on
July 17, 2015 that it will restate the financial statements for
fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and alleged
generally that the Company issued materially false or misleading
statements concerning the Company, its finances, business
operations and prospects and that the Company misrepresented the
financial performance of the Grupo Finmart business.

"On August 14, 2015, a substantially identical lawsuit, styled
Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00700-SS) was
also filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas. On September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in these
two lawsuits filed an agreed stipulation to be appointed co-lead
plaintiffs and agreed that their two actions should be
consolidated. On November 3, 2015, the Court entered an order
consolidating the two actions under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc.
Securities Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and
appointed the two plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their
respective counsel appointed as co-lead counsel.

"On January 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, the
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of our Class A
Common Stock between November 6, 2012 and October 20, 2015. The
Amended Complaint asserts that the Company and Mr. Kuchenrither
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5, issued materially false or misleading statements throughout
the proposed class period concerning the Company and its internal
controls, specifically regarding the financial performance of
Grupo Finmart. The plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Kuchenrither,
as a controlling person of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint does not assert
any claims against Mr. Grimshaw. On February 25, 2016, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 11, 2016, and the
defendants filed their reply on May 11, 2016. The Court held a
hearing on the motion to dismiss on June 22, 2016.

"On October 18, 2016, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice. The
Court gave the plaintiffs 20 days (until November 7, 2016) to file
a further amended complaint. On November 4, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
("Second Amended Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint raises
the same claims dismissed by the Court on October 18, 2016, except
plaintiffs now seek to represent a class of purchasers of EZCORP's
Class A Common Stock between November 7, 2013 and October 20, 2015
(instead of between November 6, 2012 and October 20, 2015). On
December 5, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Compliant. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss on January 6, 2017, and the defendants filed
their reply brief on January 20, 2017. The motion to dismiss is
currently pending before the Court.

"We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to
defend vigorously against all allegations and claims."

Ezcorp, Inc. is a provider of pawn loans in the United States and
Mexico.


FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Holt" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Facebook, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Christine Holt v. Facebook, Inc., Case No.
3:16-cv-02266-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks to prohibit the Defendant from using or contracting the use
of an automatic telephone dialing system without obtaining call
recipients' prior express consent pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the California Business and
Professions Code.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sends
unsolicited marketing-related text messages to her mobile phone
without prior consent.

The appellate case is captioned as Christine Holt v. Facebook,
Inc., Case No. 17-80086, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent CHRISTINE HOLT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Stewart Ryan Pollock, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          E-mail: spollock@edelson.com

               - and -

          John Aaron Lawson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 N. LaSalle St.
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-9730
          E-mail: alawson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

Defendant-Petitioner FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Devin Anderson, Esq.
          Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq.
          Susan E. Engel, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5198
          E-mail: devin.anderson@kirkland.com
                  andrew.clubok@kirkland.com
                  seengel@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 439-1400
          E-mail: elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flotek Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the lead plaintiff in
a class action lawsuit has filed a notice of appeal in this case.

In November 2015, four putative securities class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against the Company and certain of its officers.
The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single case, and an
amended complaint has been filed. The amended complaint asserts
that the Company made false and/or misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. The complaint seeks an award
of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class
consisting of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between October 23, 2014 and November 9, 2015, inclusive.

On March 30, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas granted the Company's motion to dismiss. The
lead plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal in this case.

Flotek Industries, Inc. is a global, diversified, technology-
driven company that develops and supplies chemistry and services
to the oil and gas industries, and high value compounds to
companies that make cleaning products, cosmetics, food and
beverages, and other products that are sold in consumer and
industrial markets.


FORA FINANCIAL: Dolemba's Bid to Certify Class to Be Heard Aug. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 8, 2017, in the case styled
Scott Dolemba v. Fora Financial, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-10651 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Andrea R. Wood.

The minute entry states that:

   -- the Defendants' agreed motion to stay and extend deadlines
      is granted;

   -- the case is stayed until August 1, 2017;

   -- the parties will notify the Court immediately if the
      mediation is not scheduled as anticipated;

   -- the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and the Defendants'
      motion to dismiss are entered and continued to the next
      status hearing;

   -- motion hearings set for May 9, 2017, and May 16, 2017, are
      stricken;

   -- Initial Status hearing set for May 16, 2017, is stricken
      and reset for August 1, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.; and

   -- at least seven days before the initial status hearing, the
      parties must file a joint written status report, not to
      exceed five pages in length.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zgz2aVL4


KOHN LAW: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Dunbar" Suit Brought Under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William E. Duffin entered a decision and order in the
lawsuit titled AMY DUNBAR v. KOHN LAW FIRM SC, et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-00088-WED (E.D. Wisc.):

   -- granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
      amended complaint;

   -- dismissing as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
      Plaintiff's complaint; and

   -- dismissing as moot the Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

Amy Dunbar filed the lawsuit on January 19, 2017, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  On February
14, 2017, the Defendants, Encore Capital Group Inc., Kohn Law Firm
SC, Midland Credit Management Inc., and Midland Funding LLC, moved
to dismiss the complaint.  The Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on March 7, 2017, and the Defendants moved to dismiss it
on March 21, 2017.  The Plaintiff responded to the most recent
motion to dismiss and the Defendants replied.

According to the Decision and Order, the Court concludes that the
Defendants' statement, "NOTICE: This settlement may have tax
consequences" was not "false, deceptive, or misleading."

A copy of the Decision and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eJguE5sM


GENVEC INC: Proceedings in "Hoose" Securities Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul W. Grimm approved a stipulation filed by Pillai
Sivaraman to stay proceedings in the case captioned James Hoose,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Genvec, Inc., Wayne T. Hockmeyer, William N. Kelley,
Stefan D. Loren, Quinterol J. Mallette, Michael Richman, Marc R.
Schneebaum, Douglas J. Swirsky, Intrexon Corporation and Intrexon
GV Holding, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00987-PWG (D. Md.,
April 10, 2017), according to a docket entry dated May 16, 2017.

A deal was inked earlier this year for GenVec Inc. to be acquired
by Germantown-based Intrexon Corp., reports Tina Reed of
Washington Business.

The case, brought by investor James Hoose, alleges GenVec issued
misleading disclosures in a Securities and Exchange Commission
filing on March 17 to convince shareholders to vote in favor of
the proposed deal. Hoose alleges the proxy omitted critical
information such as potential conflicts of interest faced by
management in its relationship with its financial services
company. He also raised concerns about how GenVec communicated its
expected future value as a stand-alone entity, notes the report.

GenVec, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company using differentiated,
proprietary technologies to create superior therapeutics and
vaccines.  GenVec works with leading companies and organizations
such as Novartis, Merial, and the U.S. Government to support a
portfolio of product programs that address the prevention and
treatment of a number of significant human and animal health
concerns.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Donald J. Enright, Esq.
   Brian D. Stewart, Esq.
   Levi & Korsinsky LLP
   1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
   Washington, DC 20007
   Tel: (202) 524-4290
   Fax: (202) 333-2121


HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE: Garcia Sues Over Overtime, Missed Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL GARCIA on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. Haralambos
Beverage Co. and Does 1-100, Case No. BC660723 (Cal. Super., May
16, 2017), seeks seeking unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest
period compensation, penalties, injunctive and other equitable
relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

Haralambos Beverage Co. owns and operates trucks, industrial
trucks, industrial vehicles and/or industrial work sites where
Garcia worked as a driver. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Turley, Esq.
      David Mara, Esq.
      Jill Vecchi, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048


HOME NURSE: Faces "Gonzalez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO MICHEL RAMIREZ GONZALEZ and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs. HOME NURSE CORP. d/b/a THE
PALACE AT HOME, JACOB SHAHAM, HELEN SHAHAM, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-21802-FAM (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2017), alleges that
Plaintiff has not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates a home care facility.  Plaintiff worked for
Defendants as an attendant for the elderly, caring for the aged
and infirmed.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTELEOS INC: Miller's Prelim. Injunction Bid Denied
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is denied in the
case captioned Stephanie Miller and Mary Alyce Dawson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Inteleos, Inc. and Ohio corporation, f/k/a the
American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00763 (N.D. Ohio, April 10, 2017),
according to a Minutes of Conference and Scheduling Order filed in
the docket on May 12, 2017.

The Minutes of Conference and Scheduling Order signed by Judge Dan
Aaron Polster states that on May 11, 2017, the Court held an in-
person conference.

"For the reasons stated in the Order, Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction is denied. The parties agreed to let that
process continue for approximately 60 days, and to hold a call-in
teleconference beginning at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, July 13, 2017,
to decide how to proceed at that time. The parties agreed to stay
litigation through the July 13, 2017 teleconference, and to extend
the deadline for Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint as of
right to Monday, August 21, 2017. In anticipation of the July 13,
2017 teleconference, the Court directed the parties to file a
joint status report, including any demands or counteroffers, no
later than 12:00 noon on Monday, July 10, 2017," Judge Polster
opined.


The suit alleges that the American Registry of Diagnostic Medical
Sonography, Inc., falsely reported that sonography professionals
who took certification exams between September 2016 and March 2017
failed the tests when they had, in fact, passed, and that those
false reports harmed affected professionals in a number of
ways.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Marc E. Dann, Esq.
   William C. Behrens, Esq.
   The Dann Law Firm Co., LPA
   P.O. Box 6031040
   Cleveland, OH 44103
   Tel: (216) 373-0539
   Fax: (216) 373-0536
   Email: notices@dannlaw.com

        - and -

   Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
   Zimmerman Law Offices, PC
   77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 440-0020
   Fax: (312) 440-4180
   Email: tom@attorneyzim.com


INTERIOR MAGIC: Continues to Face "Bradford" FLSA Suit in Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Sebastian Bradford, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated Persons, Plaintiff v. Interior
Magic of Texas, Inc. and Jonathan C. Roberts, Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-00907, filed last March 23, 2017, is still pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Plaintiff, who worked as a valet, brought the lawsuit against the
Defendants for non-payment of regular wages and overtime premium
for all hours worked over 40 in each workweek pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Interior Magic of Texas Inc is in the Interior Design Services
business. BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
   The Buenker Law Firm
   2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
   Houston, TX 77018
   Tel: 713-868-3388
   Fax: 713-683-9940
   Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


JAB CLOTHIERS: "Akinmeji" Suit Alleges Phony Discounts
------------------------------------------------------
Olusola Akinmeji, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, Jos. A. Bank (JAB) Clothiers, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01349, (Md. Cir., May 16, 2017),
seeks economic and compensatory damages, treble damages, actual,
general, special, incidental, statutory and consequential damages,
injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
all costs for the prosecution of this action and pre-judgment,
post-judgment interest and such other and further relief resulting
from fraud, unjust enrichment and in violation of the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant purportedly uses inflated, arbitrary, and false
"regular" prices "sales" promotions and "buy-one-take-one" deals.
JAB sells men's suits, sports apparel and dress pants at their
stores. Plaintiff alleges that their discounts are just mere
deductions from a padded regular price and the same goes for "buy-
one-take-one" offers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      Beatrice O. Yakubu, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
      4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200
      Washington, DC 20016
      Tel: (202) 789-3960
      Fax: (202) 789-1813
      Email: charles@cuneolaw.com
             byakubu@cuneolaw.com

             - and -

      Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
      HALUNEN LAW
      1650 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 605-4098
      Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
      Email: Wolchansky@halunenlaw.com


JIVE SOFTWARE: "Yoshimura" Claims Short-changed on Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Yoshimura, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jive Software, Inc., Tony
Zingale, Elisa Steele, Margaret Breya, Steve Darcy, Phil Koen,
Robert Frankfurt, Tom Reilly, Chuck Robel, Gabrielle Toledano and
Balaji Yelamanchili, Defendants, 2:17-cv-02910 (E.D.N.Y., May 12,
2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from closing the acquisition of Jive Software,
Inc. by Jazz MergerSub, Inc., all damages sustained, costs and
disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and expenses and such other and further relief under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Jive Software, Inc. has a deal to be acquired by Jazz MergerSub,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Wave Systems Corp., a wholly
owned subsidiary of ESW Capital, LLC, for $5.25 per share.  The
Plaintiff finds the deal inadequate given Jive's recent financial
performance and strong growth prospects. The trading price of the
stock was $5.32 as of May 15, 2017. Its stock price has increased
over 45% in the past year.

Jive is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Campbell,
California in the County of Santa Clara. It provides software
sales and services. The Jive Platform integrates cloud and
customer-built applications through published application
programing interfaces and software development kits. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

      David E. Bower, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
      Culver City, CA 90230
      Tel: (213) 446-6652
      Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com


KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Seeks Review of Decision in "Senne" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled Aaron
Senne, et al. v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., Case
No. 3:14-cv-00608-JCS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Aaron Senne, et al. v. Kansas
City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., Case No. 17-80088, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 4,
2017, Plaintiffs Aaron Senne, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is captioned as Aaron
Senne, et al. v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., Case
No. 17-80043, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act on
behalf of all minor league baseball players employed by Major
League Baseball or any MLB franchise under the Minor League
Uniform Player Contract.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are AARON SENNE, MICHAEL LIBERTO,
OLIVER ODLE, BRAD MCATEE, CRAIG BENNIGSON, MATT LAWSON, KYLE
WOODRUFF, RYAN KIEL, KYLE NICHOLSON, BRAD STONE, MATT DALY, AARON
MEADE, JUSTIN MURRAY, JAKE KAHAULELIO, RYAN KHOURY, DUSTIN PEASE,
JEFF NADEAU, JON GASTON, BRANDON HENDERSON, TIM PAHUTA, LEE SMITH,
JOSEPH NEWBY, RYAN HUTSON, MATT FREVERT, ROBERTO ORTIZ, WITER
JIMENEZ, KRIS WATTS, MITCH HILLIGOSS, BRETT NEWSOME, JAKE OPITZ,
DANIEL BRITT, YADEL MARTI, HELDER VELAQUEZ, JORGE JIMENEZ, JORGE
MINYETY, EDWIN MAYSONET, JOSE DIAZ, NICK GIARRAPUTO, LAUREN
GAGNIER, LEONARD DAVIS, GASPAR SANTIAGO, GRANT DUFF, OMAR AGUILAR,
MARK WAGNER, DAVID QUINOWSKI, and BRANDON PINCKNEY, Individually
and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated.

The Defendants-Petitioners are KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP.;
MIAMI MARLINS, L.P.; SAN FRANCISCO BASEBALL ASSOCIATES, LLC;
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, an unincorporated
association, DBA Major League Baseball; ALLAN HUBER SELIG, "Bud";
ANGELS BASEBALL LP; ST. LOUIS CARDINALS, LLC; COLORADO ROCKIES
BASEBALL CLUB, LTD.; CINCINNATI REDS, LLC; HOUSTON BASEBALL
PARTNERS LLC; ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; ROGERS BLUE JAYS
BASEBALL PARTNERSHIP; PADRES L.P.; SAN DIEGO PADRES BASEBALL CLUB,
L.P.; MINNESOTA TWINS, LLC; DETROIT TIGERS, INC.; LOS ANGELES
DODGERS LLC; STERLING METS L.P.; AZPB L.P.; NEW YORK YANKEES
P'SHIP; RANGERS BASEBALL EXPRESS, LLC; RANGERS BASEBALL, LLC;
MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, INC.; MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL
CLUB, L.P.; CHICAGO CUBS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC; PITTSBURGH
ASSOCIATES, LP; BASEBALL CLUB OF SEATTLE, LLP; and LOS ANGELES
DODGERS HOLDING COMPANY LLC.

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Aaron Michael Zigler, Esq.
          Robert L. King, Esq.
          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY LLC
          505 N 7th Street
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
          E-mail: azigler@koreintillery.com
                  rking@koreintillery.com
                  stillery@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Bobby Pouya, Esq.
          Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: bpouya@pswlaw.com
                  dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com

The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:

          Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
          Adam M. Lupion, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com
                  alupion@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Mark David Harris, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Telephone: (212) 969-3530
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: mharris@proskauer.com


KIDDS RESTAURANTS: Faces "Kroboth" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATHANIAL KROBOTH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against KIDDS RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00519 (S.D. Ill., May 16, 2017), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Plaintiff and other current and former Assistant
Managers or Assistant Store Managers, who worked more than 40
hours in any workweek at any Jimmy John's store owned by
Defendant.

Defendant owns and operates approximately six to ten Jimmy John's
franchised locations under one or more franchise agreements with
Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC.  Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an
Assistant Store Manager.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Sarah Arendt, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS P.C.
     77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     Fax: (312) 419-1025

        - and -

     Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
     Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
     Christopher M. McNerney, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 245-1000
     Fax: (212) 977-4005


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Ct. Consolidates Four Relates Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Fulton County Employees Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Mallinckrodt PLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00534 (D.C., March 23, 2017) was consolidated with Shenk v.
Mallinckrodt PLC, Civil Case No. 17-145, Patel v. Mallinckrodt
PLC, Civil Case No. 17-171, and Schwartz v. Mallinckrodt PLC,
Civil Case No. 17-447, according to a docket entry dated May 17,
2017.

The minute order signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan states that
"the cases involve common questions of law and fact. Accordingly,
the four cases are hereby consolidated. All filings in these
consolidated cases should be made, with separate captions for each
case, only in Civil Case No. 17-145. The parties shall make no
additional filings in Civil Case No. 17-534, and the Clerk of the
Court is directed to close Case No. 17-534."

Fulton County Employees Retirement System seeks to recover damages
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Mallinckrodt securities between July 14, 2014 and January
18, 2017 inclusive (the Class Period) for violation of Federal
Securities Laws.

Its complaint alleges that Mallinckrodt engaged in a secret and
unlawful scheme designed to eliminate all competition for the
Company's key drug, H.P. Athar Gel (Acthar), which accounted for
as much as 34% of the Company's revenue during the relevant time
period. The Company was able to eliminate competition by acquiring
the rights to Acthar's sole competing drug, Synacthen Depot
(Synacthen) and then proceeded to shut down development and
production of that drug.

Mallinckrodt is a specialty pharmaceutical company that develops,
manufactures, markets and distributes branded and generic
pharmaceutical products and therapies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
   Steven J. Toll, Esq.
   Elizabeth A. Aniskevich, Esq.
   Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
   1100 New York Avenue, N.W. / Fifth Floor
   Washington, DC 20005
   Tel: (202) 408-4600
   Fax: (202) 408-4699
   Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
          dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
          eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

   Maya Saxena, Esq.
   Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
   Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
   Saxena White, P.A.
   5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
   Boca Raton, FL 33486
   Tel: (561) 394-3399
   Fax: (561) 394-3382
   Email: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
          jwhite@saxenawhite.com
          lhooker@saxenawhite.com

         - and -

   Steven B. Singer, Esq.
   4 West Red Oak Lane, Suite 312
   White Plains, NY 10604
   Tel: (914) 437-8551
   Fax: (888) 631-3611
   Email: ssinger@saxenawhite.com


MDL 2326: 43,000 Product Liability Cases Filed as of April 26
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that as of April 26,
2017, approximately 43,000 product liability cases or claims
related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat
stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been
asserted against the Company.

The Company said, "The pending cases are in various federal and
state courts in the United States and include eight putative class
actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive
of one certified and three putative class actions, and fewer than
25 claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege
personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical
mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing
claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of
state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over
3,100 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in
state court in Massachusetts."

"On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and
transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to
MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth
quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from
certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal
surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests.

"As of April 26, 2017, we have entered into master settlement
agreements in principle or are in final stages of entering one
with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of
approximately 37,000 cases and claims. These master settlement
agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of
settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon,
among other things, achieving minimum required claimant
participation thresholds. Of the approximately 37,000 cases and
claims, approximately 12,000 have met the conditions of the
settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered
into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or
concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing."


MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS: "Brown" Class Action Pending in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Nathanael Brown, for himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mid-America Apartments, LP, as
successor in merger to Post Apartment Homes, LP d/b/a Post South
Lamar, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00307 filed on
April 10, 2017, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover statutory remedies for himself and
the Class for unreasonable and excessive rent late fees assessed
during the Class Period.

The Plaintiff says Defendants are not permitted to seek alleged
damages for breach of contract against Plaintiffs or the class for
late payment of rent.

Mid-America Apartments, LP is a real estate investment trust
(REIT) that focuses primarily on the acquisition, development,
redevelopment and management of multifamily homes throughout the
Southeast and Southwest regions of the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   Jason W. Snell, Esq.
   The Snell Law Firm, PLLC
   Chase Tower
   221 W. 6th Street, Suite 900
   Austin, TX 78701
   Tel: (512) 477-5291
   Fax: (512) 477-5294
   Email: firm@snellfirm.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Woods Moves for Class Certification Under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Kevin Woods, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00600-RGK-JPR (C.D. Cal.), asks
the Court to certify this Class:

     All persons in the United States whom Defendant tried to
     contact in an effort to collect an alleged debt that was
     time barred within one (1) year of filing this complaint
     wherein Defendant failed to disclose that payment on the
     alleged debt would revive the statute of limitation.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Kevin Woods also asks to be appointed as Class Representatives,
and for the appointment of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman,
P.C., as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 29, 2018, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, 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
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Appeals Ruling in "Garcia" Suit to Third Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Midland Funding LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Rufino Garcia v. Midland Funding LLC, Case
No. 1-15-cv-06119, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Rufino Garcia v. Midland
Funding LLC, Case No. 17-2104, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee RUFINO D. GARCIA, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Christopher Markos, Esq.
          WILLIAMS CUKER & BEREZOFSKY
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1300
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 557-0099
          E-mail: cmarkos@wcblegal.com

Defendant-Appellant MIDLAND FUNDING LLC is represented by:

          Ellen E. Lavelle, Esq.
          Ronald M. Metcho, II, Esq.
          Andrew M. Schwartz, Esq.
          DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, P.C.
          2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-4564
          Facsimile: (215) 575-0856
          E-mail: eelavelle@mdwcg.com
                  rmmetcho@mdwcg.com
                  amschwartz@mdwcg.com


NEBRASKA, USA: Class Suit Certification Sought in "Johnson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scotty R. Glassco, one of the Plaintiffs of the lawsuit styled
JAMES D. JOHNSON and SCOTTY R. GLASSCO, et al. v. NDCS DIRECTOR
SCOTT R. FRAKES, Case No. 8:17-cv-00039-RGK-PRSE (D. Neb.), moves
the Court for class action certification and appointment of class
counsel.

Scott R. Frakes is the director of the Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services.

Mr. Glassco contends that questions of law are common to each of
the 900+ plaintiffs whether, among other things, the NDCS is
unlawfully depriving prison good time credit toward the maximum
portion of sentences when mandatory minimum criminal sentences are
imposed in light of the fact that the plain and unambiguous
language of the prison good-time statute at Nebraska Revised
Statute.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OKG7obCN


OSTERKAMP TRANS: "Sanchez" Suit Hits Illegal Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adriana C Sanchez, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, v. Osterkamp Transportation Group, Osterkamp Trucking,
Inc., Dedicated Fleet Systems, Inc., Frontier Transportation, Inc.
and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC661121 (Cal.
Super., May 16, 2017), seeks statutory and civil penalties,
punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs of suit, interests,
reasonable attorney's fees and such other relief under the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act, California's Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act and Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acquired credit and background
reports on himself in connection with their hiring process without
providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in
compliance with the law. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      Thomas Segal, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
             thomas@setarehlaw.com


PACE OPPORTUNITY: Class of Employees Certified in "Ellison" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert W. Schroeder, III, conditionally certifies the
collective action entitled Angela Ellison, on Behalf of Herself
and All Others Similarly Situated v. Pace Opportunity Centers,
Inc., Case No. 6:16-cv-01263-RWS (E.D. Tex.), under the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, authorizes the Plaintiff's counsel to
issue opt-in notices and consent to join forms to:

     all current and/or former employees of Pace Opportunity
     Centers, Inc. ("Pace" or "Defendant") who, at any time
     during the time period of three years preceding the date of
     this order to the end of the Notice Period identified below,
     were paid a salary, and worked as Case Managers and/or QIDPs
     (the "Putative Collective Action Members").

The Court also approves this schedule:

   * Deadline: 7 Business Days After the Date of this Order.

     Description: Defendant shall disclose the full names, last
     known addresses, last known email addresses, and dates of
     employment of the Putative Collective Action Members.  This
     information shall be produced in a usable electronic format
     if same is readily available to Defendant.

   * Deadline: 20 Calendar Days After Receipt of the Contact
     Information for the Putative Collective Action Members from
     Defendant.

     Description: Plaintiff's Counsel shall send by mail a copy
     of Notice and CTJ (the "Notice Packet") to the Putative
     Collective Action Members. Plaintiff's Counsel may enclose a
     postage paid, self-addressed envelope in the Notice Packet.

   * Deadline: 60 Days After the Date the Notice Packet is Mailed
     to Putative Collective Action Members.

     Description: The Putative Collective Action Members shall
     have 60 days to return their signed CTJ for filing with the
     Court.  Electronically signed CTJs are permitted by the
     Court.  That 60 day period shall begin to run three days
     after the mailing of the Notice Packet by Plaintiff's
     Counsel (the Notice Period").  CTJs shall be considered
     timely received for purposes of opting into this lawsuit if
     postmarked or faxed no later than the end of that Notice
     Period and filed by Counsel for Plaintiff promptly
     thereafter.

Within 24 hours of mailing the Notice Packets, the Putative
Collective Action members, Counsel for the Plaintiff will file a
notice with the Court through the Court's ECF system advising of
the date of the mailing.

The Defendant is further ordered to provide Counsel for the
Plaintiff with the last four digits of the Social Security Number
for Putative Collective Action Members whose Notice Packet is
returned undeliverable.  The Defendant will provide that data
within four business days of being notified by Counsel for the
Plaintiff that the Notice Packet for any Putative Collective
Action Member was returned as undeliverable.  The Plaintiff is
authorized to send an additional Notice Packet to any Putative
Collective Action Member whose initial notice was returned as
undeliverable.

The envelope, in which the Notice Packets will be mailed, state on
the outside, in regular or bold typeface: "Notice of Unpaid
Overtime Lawsuit - Deadline to Join."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RJQGga1N


PETTA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Graybill" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Graybill (9473 Macedonia Rd., Hopewell, Ohio 43746)
Plaintiff, v. Petta Enterprises, LLC aka Petta Enterprises of PA,
LLC (128 Steubenville Ave., Cambridge, Ohio 43725), Case No. 2:17-
cv-00418-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 16, 2017), alleges on behalf of
Plaintiff and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, that Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40
hours per week, but was not paid one and one-half his regular rate
for all hours worked over 40 as a result of Defendant's policies.

The case alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Named Plaintiff worked in a number of multiple manual laborer
positions for Defendant's environmental cleaning services at oil
rigs for Defendant's oil and gas industry customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
     COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
     1457 S. High St.
     Columbus, OH 43207
     Phone: 614-949-1181
     Fax: 614-386-9964
     Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

        - and -

     Peter A. Contreras, Esq.
     CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
     PO Box 215
     Amlin, OH 43002
     Phone: 614-787-4878
     Fax: 614-923-7369
     Email: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


PINO GROCERY: Perez Alleges FLSA & NY Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
MIGUELINA PEREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PINO GROCERY CORP. and FEDERICO DE LA
ROSA a/k/a FEDERICO DELAROSA, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02965
(E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2017), alleges that although Plaintiff and
others similarly situated often worked as many as forty-seven
hours in a workweek, or more, Defendants failed to pay overtime
premiums for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek
at 1-1/2 times the regular rate of pay.  The case alleges
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Defendants own, operate and manage a restaurant in New York City.
Plaintiff was employed as a fulltime restaurant worker.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Harrison, Esq.
     HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
     110 State Highway 35, Suite #10
     Red Bank, NJ 07701
     Phone: (718) 799-9111
     Fax: (718) 799-9171
     E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


PNC FINANCIAL: Supreme Court Denied Petition for Certiorari
-----------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the U.S.
Supreme Court has denied the petition for a writ of certiorari
challenging a decision in the interchange litigation.

In March 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a
writ of certiorari challenging the decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit's reversal of the order approving a
settlement in the cases that had been consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York under the caption In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant-Discount Antitrust Litigation (Master File No. 1:05-md-
1720-JG-JO).

The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (PNC) is one of the largest
diversified financial services companies in the United States and
is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


PNC FINANCIAL: Arbitrators Award $24 Million to Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3,
2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that
arbitrators have reached a unanimous decision awarding the
plaintiffs a total of $24 million in the CBNV Mortgage Litigation.

Between 2001 and 2003, on behalf of either individual plaintiffs
or proposed classes of plaintiffs, several separate lawsuits were
filed in state and federal courts against Community Bank of
Northern Virginia (CBNV), a PNC Bank predecessor, and other
defendants asserting claims arising from second mortgage loans
made to the plaintiffs. The state lawsuits were removed to federal
court and, with the lawsuits that had been filed in federal court,
were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a multidistrict
litigation (MDL) proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re:
Community Bank of Northern Virginia Lending Practices Litigation
(No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674).

In October 2011, the plaintiffs filed a joint consolidated amended
class action complaint covering all of the class action lawsuits
pending in this proceeding. The amended complaint named several
defendants, including CBNV. As relevant to CBNV, the principal
allegations in the amended complaint were that a group of persons
and entities collectively characterized as the "Shumway/Bapst
Organization" referred prospective second residential mortgage
loan borrowers to CBNV, that CBNV charged these borrowers improper
title and loan fees at loan closings, that the disclosures
provided to the borrowers at loan closings were inaccurate, and
that CBNV paid some of the loan fees to the Shumway/Bapst
Organization as purported "kickbacks" for the referrals. The
amended complaint asserted claims for violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in Lending Act
(TILA), as amended by the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act
(HOEPA), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO).

The amended complaint sought to certify a class of all borrowers
who obtained a second residential non-purchase money mortgage
loan, secured by their principal dwelling, including from CBNV,
the terms of which made the loan subject to HOEPA. The plaintiffs
sought, among other things, unspecified damages (including treble
damages under RICO and RESPA), rescission of loans, declaratory
and injunctive relief, interest and attorneys' fees. In November
2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

In June 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the
motion, dismissing the claims of any plaintiff whose loan did not
originate with or was not assigned to CBNV, narrowing the scope of
the RESPA claim, and dismissing several of the named plaintiffs
for lack of standing. Also in June 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification, which was granted in July 2013.

In July 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the grant of class certification by the district court.

The Company said, "In November 2015, we filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of
the decision of the court of appeals, which was denied in February
2016. We filed motions with the district court for decertification
and summary judgment in April 2016."

"In August 2016, we reached a settlement with the plaintiffs. In
December 2016, the court granted final approval of the settlement.
Under this settlement, the matter was submitted to binding
arbitration in February 2017 before a panel of three arbitrators,
who were to determine whether we would pay the plaintiff class
either an amount (inclusive of class counsel fees and expenses) we
proposed ($24 million) or an amount proposed by the plaintiffs
($70 million), with no discretion to choose any other amount. The
arbitrators reached a unanimous decision in March 2017 deciding in
favor of our position and awarding the plaintiffs a total of $24
million."

The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (PNC) is one of the largest
diversified financial services companies in the United States and
is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


PRESBYTERIAN RETIREMENT: Steele Seeks OT Pay & Retaliation Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Steele, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Presbyterian Retirement Communities, Inc.,
Case No. 6:17-cv-00871, (M.D. Fla., May 16, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime wages and a claim for retaliation pursuant to the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, wrongful termination claim pursuant to
the Florida Whistleblower Act and claim for negligent retention
and supervision pursuant to Florida common law.

Presbyterian Retirement is in the business of developing and
operating retirement communities that provide independent living,
assisted living and nursing care to its residents. Steele was
employed by the Defendant as kitchen staff at their retirement
community located at 70 West Lucerne Circle, Orlando, Florida. She
claims unpaid overtime and did not receive accurate wage
statements. She allegedly was terminated for complaining. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott C. Adams, Esq.
      N. Ryan Labar, Esq.
      LABAR AND ADAMS, P.A.
      2300 E. Concord St.
      Orlando, FL 32803
      Tel: (407) 835-8968
      Fax: (407) 835-8969
      Email: sadams@labaradams.com
             rlabar@labaradams.com


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,352 Broin II Lawsuits Pending at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that as of March 31, there
were 2,352 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have been
no Broin II trials since 2007.

Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Miami-Dade County, Fla.,
filed 1991), was a class action brought on behalf of flight
attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or ailments
caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins. In October 1997, RJR
Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and
other cigarette manufacturer defendants settled Broin, agreeing to
pay a total of $300 million in three annual $100 million
installments, allocated among the companies by market share, to
fund research on the early detection and cure of diseases
associated with tobacco smoke. It also required those companies to
pay a total of $49 million for the plaintiffs' counsel's fees and
expenses. RJR Tobacco's portion of these payments was
approximately $86 million; Lorillard Tobacco's was approximately
$57 million; and B&W's was approximately $31 million. The
settlement agreement, among other things, limits the types of
claims class members may bring and eliminates claims for punitive
damages. The settlement agreement also provides that, in
individual cases by class members that are referred to as Broin II
lawsuits, the defendant will bear the burden of proof with respect
to whether ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases,
referred to as "general causation." With respect to all other
liability issues, including whether an individual plaintiff's
disease was caused by his or her exposure to ETS in airplane
cabins, referred to as "specific causation," individual plaintiffs
will bear the burden of proof. On September 7, 1999, the Florida
Supreme Court approved the settlement.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 26 Smoking Class Action Cases Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that 26 class-action cases,
excluding the shareholder case, were pending in the United States
against Reynolds Defendants as of March 31.  These class actions
seek recovery for personal injuries allegedly caused by cigarette
smoking or, in some cases, for economic damages allegedly incurred
by cigarette or e-cigarette purchasers.

In 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Castano v. American
Tobacco Co. overturned the certification of a nation-wide class of
persons whose claims related to alleged addiction to tobacco
products, finding that the district court failed to properly
assess variations in the governing state laws and whether common
issues predominated over individual issues. Since the Fifth
Circuit's ruling in Castano, few smoker class-action complaints
have been certified or, if certified, have survived on appeal.

Eighteen federal courts, including two courts of appeals, and most
state courts that have considered the issue have rejected class
certification in such cases. Apart from Castano, only two smoker
class actions have been certified by a federal court -- In re
Simon (II) Litigation and Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA
Inc., both of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and were later decertified.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Four "Lights" Class-Action Cases Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that four "lights" class-
action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc., two in Illinois state court and two in Missouri
state court.

The classes in these cases generally seek to recover compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general,
the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and
misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and
nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other
cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

The seminal "lights" class-action case is Price v. Philip Morris,
Inc. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed 2000), an action filed
against the predecessor of Philip Morris USA Inc., referred to as
Philip Morris. In March 2003, the trial court entered judgment
against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1 billion in
compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages. In
December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion
reversing and remanding with instructions to dismiss the case.

On December 5, 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its
mandate, and the trial court entered a judgment of dismissal later
in December 2006. In multiple filings since December 2008, the
Price plaintiffs have argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis upon
which the Illinois Supreme Court had reversed the Price trial
court's 2003 judgment and, on that basis, have attempted to
reinstate that judgment.

In April 2014, the intermediate appellate court reinstated the
trial court's 2003 judgment. In November 2015, the Illinois
Supreme Court (1) vacated the lower courts' judgments, (2)
dismissed the case without prejudice to allow the plaintiffs to
file a motion to have the Illinois Supreme Court recall its
December 5, 2006, mandate that had reversed the trial court's 2003
judgment, and (3) directed entry of a judgment of dismissal. The
plaintiffs then moved in the Illinois Supreme Court to have that
court recall its December 5, 2006 mandate.

On January 11, 2016, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 2016, which
was denied on June 20, 2016.

In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. Madison County,
Ill., filed 2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers
of RJR Tobacco "lights" cigarettes in November 2001. In November
2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for
a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in the Price case
described above. The stay subsequently expired, and the court
accordingly scheduled a series of status conferences, all of which
were continued by agreement of the parties. The status conference
scheduled for March 29, 2017 did not occur and has not been
rescheduled.

In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Cir. Ct. Madison
County, Ill., filed 2000), the trial court certified a class of
purchasers of B&W "lights" cigarettes in December 2001. In June
2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all proceedings
pending resolution of the Price case described above. In August
2005, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the
Circuit Court's stay order. There is currently no activity in the
case.

In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. City of St.
Louis, Mo., filed 2000), the trial court certified a class of
purchasers of RJR Tobacco "lights" cigarettes in December 2003. A
status conference is scheduled for June 5, 2017.

In Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Cir. Ct. City of St.
Louis, Mo., filed 2000), a putative class action filed on behalf
of a class of purchasers of B&W "lights" cigarettes, a status
conference is scheduled for June 5, 2017.

In the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or indemnitees lose
one or more of the pending "lights" class-action suits, RJR
Tobacco, depending upon the amount of any damages ordered, could
face difficulties in its ability to pay the judgment or obtain any
bond required to stay execution of the judgment which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Stipulation Dismisses RAI from Consumer Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties have filed
a joint stipulation dismissing RAI and related entities from the
case, In In re Fontem US, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litig.
(U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal., filed 2015).

In In re Fontem US, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litig. (U.S.D.C.
C.D. Cal., filed 2015), the plaintiffs brought a class action
against RAI, Lorillard, another RAI affiliate, and two other
defendants on behalf of putative classes of California, New York,
and Illinois purchasers of blu brand e-cigarettes. This action
results from the consolidation of two actions -- Diek v. Lorillard
Tobacco Co. and Whitney v. ITG Brands, LLC. The plaintiffs allege
that certain advertising, marketing and packaging materials for
blu brand e-cigarettes made deceptive claims, omitted material
information, or failed to contain required disclosures. On behalf
of one or more of the classes, the plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief, equitable relief, and compensatory and punitive damages
under California Civil Code Sec.1,750 et seq., California Business
& Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq., California Business and
Professions Code Sec.17,500 et seq., New York General Business Law
Sec. 349, and Illinois Consumer Fraud And Deceptive Business
Practices Act Sec. 505/1 et seq.

Pursuant to the terms of the asset purchase agreement relating to
the Divestiture, RAI tendered the defense of the now-consolidated
Diek and Whitney actions to, and sought indemnification for those
actions from, ITG.  Pursuant to the terms, limitations and
conditions of the asset purchase agreement relating to the
Divestiture, ITG agreed to defend and indemnify RAI and its
affiliates against losses arising from the operation of the blu
brand e-cigarette business.

On May 20, 2016, the trial court stayed the matter pending the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' rulings in Briseno v. ConAgra
Foods, Inc. (decided January 3, 2017), Jones v. ConAgra Foods,
Inc. (pending), and Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC (decided
September 30, 2016). The stay did not apply to finalizing the
pleadings and related briefing.

On May 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss. On
November 1, 2016, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss in substantial part, finding that federal law preempted
all of the plaintiffs' claims except those based on alleged
violations of California's Proposition 65 under California's
Business and Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq.

On March 8, 2017, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
reconsider the November 1, 2016 order and certify that order for
interlocutory appeal and ordered the defendants to respond to the
second amended complaint. On April 21, 2017, the parties filed a
joint stipulation dismissing RAI and related entities from the
action.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Vapor's Bid to Dismiss "Harris" Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a decision is pending
on RJR Vapor's motion to dismiss the "Harris" lawsuit.

In Harris v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal., filed
2015), the plaintiff brought a class action against RJR Vapor on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VUSE e-cigarettes. The
plaintiff alleges that RJR Vapor failed to advise users that they
potentially could be exposed to formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. The
plaintiff asserts failure to warn claims under California's
Proposition 65, as well as California Business & Professions Code
Sec. 17,200 et seq. and California Civil Code Sec. 1,750 et seq.
and seeks declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement,
injunctive relief and damages. RJR Vapor moved to dismiss
contending, among other things, that plaintiff's action was
governed in its entirety by Proposition 65 and that the plaintiff
failed to give the 60-day pre-suit notice required by Proposition
65, requiring that the entire case be dismissed with prejudice.
The motion to dismiss was argued on March 2, 2016.

On September 30, 2016, the court granted RJR Vapor's motion to
dismiss but provided the plaintiff leave to amend. The plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint on October 31, 2016, and RJR
Vapor has again moved to dismiss. Oral argument occurred on
January 19, 2017. A decision is pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: July 2018 Hearing on Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a hearing on the class
certification motion in the No Additive/Natural/Organic Claim
Cases is set for July 13-14, 2018.

Following the FDA's August 27, 2015, warning letter to SFNTC
relating to the use of the words "natural" and "additive-free" in
the labeling, advertising and promotional materials for NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes, plaintiffs purporting to bring
claims on behalf of themselves and others have filed putative
nationwide and/or state-specific class actions against SFNTC and,
in some instances, RAI. A total of 16 such actions have been filed
in nine U.S. district courts. Each of these cases is discussed
below. In various combinations, plaintiffs in these cases
generally allege violations of state deceptive and unfair trade
practice statutes, and claim state common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment based on the use of
descriptors such as "natural," "organic" and "100% additive-free"
in the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of SFNTC's
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The actions seek various
categories of recovery, including economic damages, injunctive
relief (including medical monitoring and cessation programs),
interest, restitution, disgorgement, treble and punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 6, 2016, the plaintiffs in one action filed a motion
before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") to consolidate these actions before one district court
for pretrial purposes. On April 11, 2016, the JPML ordered that
these cases be consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge
James O. Browning in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico, referred to as the transferee court, and the then-
pending and later-filed cases now are consolidated for pretrial
purposes in that court. The cases that were filed in or
transferred for pretrial purposes to the transferee court are as
follows:

* Sproule v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. S.D.
Fla., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of
a putative nationwide class of purchasers of Natural American
Spirit brand cigarettes.

* Brattain v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. N.D.
Cal., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of
a putative class of California purchasers of Natural American
Spirit brand cigarettes.

* Rothman v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
S.D.N.Y., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative class of New York purchasers of NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

* Dunn v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M.,
filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC on behalf of a putative
nationwide class (and Minnesota subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

* Haksal v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M.,
filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a
putative nationwide class (and California, Illinois, Minnesota,
and New Mexico subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN
SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

* Cuebas v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.,
filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a
putative nationwide class (and New York subclass) of purchasers of
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

* Okstad v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D.
Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of
a putative nationwide class and sixteen putative state-based
subclasses (Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Illinois, Maryland, Maine, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin subclasses) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

* Ruggiero v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.D.C.,
filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a
putative nationwide class (and Maryland subclass) of purchasers of
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

* Waldo v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D. Fla.,
filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a
putative nationwide class (and Florida subclass) of purchasers of
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

* Grandison v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C.
E.D.N.Y., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on
behalf of a putative nationwide class (and California, Florida and
New York subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT
brand cigarettes.

* Gudmundson v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. V.I.,
filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a
putative class of U.S. Virgin Islands purchasers of NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

* LeCompte v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M.,
filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a
putative class of California purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT
brand cigarettes.

* White v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M.,
filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC on behalf of a putative
nationwide class of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand
cigarettes.

* Johnston v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. S.D
Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of
a putative nationwide class (and Florida subclass) of purchasers
of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

* Cole v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D. N.C.,
filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a
putative nationwide class (and North Carolina subclass) of
purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes.

* Hebert v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D.
N.C., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC, RAI and RJR Tobacco
on behalf of a putative class of purchasers in California,
Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, Ohio and Washington of NATURAL AMERICAN
SPIRIT cigarettes, and a nationwide putative class of NATURAL
AMERICAN SPIRIT brand menthol cigarette purchasers (and subclass
of such purchasers in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois and
New Mexico).

The transferee court entered a scheduling order requiring the
plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. On September
19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
naming SFNTC, RAI, and RJR Tobacco as defendants. That complaint
alleges violations of 12 states' deceptive and unfair trade
practices statutes -- California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, Ohio, and West Virginia -- based on the use of
descriptors such as "natural," "organic" and "100% additive-free"
in the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of SFNTC's
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. It also asserts unjust
enrichment claims under those 12 states' laws and asserts breach
of express warranty claims on behalf of a national class of
NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT menthol purchasers. The state deceptive
and unfair trade practice statutory and unjust enrichment claims
are brought on behalf of state-specific classes in the 12 states
listed above and, in some instances, state-specific subclasses.
The consolidated amended complaint seeks class certification,
payment for class notice, injunctive relief, monetary damages,
prejudgment interest, statutory damages, restitution, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On November 18, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Before responding to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended class action complaint on January 12, 2017. On
February 23, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled
for May 12, 2017.

The transferee court's scheduling order, as amended, provides for
the plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification by April
3, 2018, and a hearing on the class certification motion on July
13-14, 2018.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" and "Parsons" Cases Still Dormant
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that these class action
lawsuits remain dormant:

In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. (Cir. Ct. Orleans Parish,
La., filed 1997), the plaintiff brought a class action against
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and
parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR,
on behalf of a putative class of Louisiana residents who, though
not themselves cigarette smokers, allegedly suffered injury as a
result of exposure to ETS from cigarettes manufactured by
defendants. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount
of compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2016, the court
entered an order staying the case, including all discovery,
pending the completion of the smoking cessation program ordered by
the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Ohio County, W. Va., filed
1998), the plaintiff brought a class action against asbestos
manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, on behalf of
a putative class of persons who allegedly have personal injury
claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers
and cigarette smoke. The plaintiff seeks to recover $1 million in
compensatory and punitive damages individually for her purported
injuries and an unspecified amount for the class in compensatory
and punitive damages. In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral
Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North America and
Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong
World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to
all defendants who filed for bankruptcy. The case remains pending
against the other defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Lorillard
Tobacco, but it has long been dormant.

In Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. (Cir. Ct., Jackson County,
Mo., filed 1998), the plaintiff filed a class action against the
major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, B&W,
Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, on behalf of a
putative class of Missouri tobacco product users and purchasers
who allegedly became addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. There is
currently no activity in this case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Class Actions Remain Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that seven putative class
actions have been filed against various Canadian and non-Canadian
tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its
affiliates, in Canadian provincial courts.

In these cases, the plaintiffs allege claims based on fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of
merchantability, and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure
to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to
children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, market share liability, and violations of various
trade practices and competition statutes. The plaintiffs seek
recovery on behalf of proposed classes of persons allegedly
suffering from tobacco-related disease as a result of smoking
defendants' cigarettes and seek recovery of compensatory and
punitive damages, restitution, recovery of government health-care
benefits, interest, and costs. Pursuant to the terms of the 1999
sale of RJR Tobacco's international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco
has tendered the defense of these seven actions to JTI. Subject to
a reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR
Tobacco and its current or former affiliates in these actions.
Plaintiffs' counsel have been actively pursuing only Bourassa, the
action pending in British Columbia, at this time.

* In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ct. of
Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Jud. Centre, filed 2009), the plaintiff
seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class of persons who purchased or smoked defendants' cigarettes
and suffered, or currently suffer, from tobacco-related disease,
as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government
expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use
of tobacco products.

* In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ct. of
Queen's Bench, Alberta Jud. Centre of Calgary -- filed 2009), the
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class of persons who purchased or smoked defendants'
cigarettes and suffered, or currently suffer, from tobacco-related
disease, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of
government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused
by the use of tobacco products.

* In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Sup. Ct.
Nova Scotia, Halifax, filed 2009), the plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of persons who purchased or smoked defendants'
cigarettes for the period from January 1, 1954, to the expiry of
the opt-out period as set by the court and suffered, or currently
suffer, from tobacco-related disease, as well as restitution of
profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-
care costs allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.

* In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ct. of
Queen's Bench, Jud. Centre of Regina, filed 2009), the plaintiff
seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class of persons who were alive on July 10, 2009, and suffered, or
currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum
of 25,000 of defendants' cigarettes, as well as disgorgement of
revenues earned by the defendants. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate
have brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the
Saskatchewan court.

* In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. (Sup. Ct. of British
Columbia, Victoria Registry, filed 2010), the plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of
persons who were alive on June 12, 2007, and suffered, or
currently suffer, from chronic respiratory diseases, after having
smoked a minimum of 25,000 of defendants' cigarettes, as well as
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its
affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the
British Columbia court. The plaintiff filed a motion for
certification in April 2012, and filed affidavits in support in
August 2013. An amended claim was filed in December 2014.

* In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. (Sup. Ct. of British
Columbia, Victoria Registry, filed 2010), the plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of
persons who were alive on June 12, 2007, and suffered, or
currently suffer, from heart disease, after having smoked a
minimum of 25,000 of defendants' cigarettes, as well as
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its
affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the
British Columbia court.

* In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ontario
Super. Ct. of Justice, St. Catherines, filed 2012), the plaintiff
seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class of persons who were alive on June 12, 2007, and suffered, or
currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
heart disease, or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000
of defendants' cigarettes, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits
allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Petition for Rehearing in ERISA Case Held
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiff's
petition for rehearing in the ERISA Litigation was held May 12,
2017.

In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging
that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as
ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a
decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently
renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin
off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food
business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the
previously related entities had to be divided into two separate
plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The
plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants
removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food
business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco,
as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six
months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts that a November
1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and
Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on January 31, 2000,
contained sufficient discretion for the defendants to have
retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and
that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of
fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among
other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as
damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent
appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the
liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April
2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The
court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing
all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR
Pension Investment Committee. The plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification, which the court granted in September 2008.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. On
February 25, 2013, the district court dismissed the case with
prejudice, finding that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary could
have made the same decision and thus the plan's loss was not
caused by the procedural prudence which the court found to have
existed. On August 4, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,
referred to as Fourth Circuit, reversed, holding that the district
court applied the wrong standard when it held that the defendants
did not cause any loss to the plan, determined the test was
whether a hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have made the same
decision and remanded the case back to the district court to apply
the "would have standard."

On February 18, 2016, the district court dismissed the case with
prejudice, finding that the defendants have shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that a fiduciary acting with
prudence would have divested the NGH and Nabisco Funds at the time
and in the manner that the defendants did.

On March 17, 2016, the plaintiff appealed arguing that the
district court erred in finding that a hypothetical prudent
fiduciary would have divested the NGH and Nabisco Funds at the
same time and in the same manner as RJR.

On April 28, 2017, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district
court's judgment in favor of RJR. The plaintiff's petition for
rehearing was May 12, 2017.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: BAT Asks North Carolina Court for Review
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that BAT petitioned the
North Carolina Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals'
decision.

RAI, the members of the RAI board of directors and BAT have been
named as defendants in a putative class-action lawsuit captioned
Corwin v. British American Tobacco PLC, brought in North Carolina
state court, referred to as the North Carolina Action, by a person
identifying himself as a shareholder of RAI. The North Carolina
Action was initiated on August 8, 2014, and an amended complaint
was filed on November 7, 2014. The amended complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that the members of the RAI board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to RAI shareholders by
approving the share purchase by BAT and the sharing of technology
with BAT, as well as that there were various conflicts of interest
in the transaction. More specifically, the amended complaint
alleges that (1) RAI aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by its board of directors and (2) BAT was a
controlling shareholder of RAI and, as a consequence, owed other
RAI shareholders fiduciary duties in connection with the BAT Share
Purchase. The North Carolina Action seeks injunctive relief,
damages and reimbursement of costs, among other remedies.

On January 2, 2015, the plaintiff in the North Carolina Action
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin
temporarily the RAI shareholder meeting and votes scheduled for
January 28, 2015. RAI and the RAI board of directors timely
opposed that motion prior to a hearing that was scheduled to occur
on January 16, 2015.

RAI believed that the North Carolina Action was without merit and
that no further disclosure was necessary to supplement the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws. However, to
eliminate certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties, on January
17, 2015, RAI and the director defendants in the North Carolina
Action entered into the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding
regarding the settlement of the disclosure claims asserted in that
lawsuit. The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding outlines
the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and
release the disclosure claims which were or could have been
asserted in the North Carolina Action. In consideration of the
partial settlement and release, RAI agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
which it did on January 20, 2015.

On August 4, 2015, the trial court granted the defendants' motions
to dismiss all of the remaining non-disclosure claims. The
plaintiff appealed. On February 17, 2016, the trial court approved
the partial settlement, including the plaintiff's unopposed
request for $415,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. The partial
settlement did not affect the consideration paid to Lorillard
shareholders in connection with the Lorillard Merger.

On December 20, 2016, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court's dismissal of the claims against RAI and RAI's
Board of Directors on the grounds that the plaintiff could not
state a direct claim against RAI's Board of Directors for breach
of fiduciary duties. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal
of the claims against BAT.

On January 4, 2017, BAT filed a motion for rehearing en banc of
the Court of Appeals' opinion, which was denied on February 2,
2017. On February 27, 2017, BAT petitioned the North Carolina
Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals' decision.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Says Lorillard Required to Indemnify Loews
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Lorillard is required
to indemnify Loews in class action lawsuits.

In 2008, Loews Corporation, referred to as Loews, entered into an
agreement with Lorillard, Lorillard Tobacco, and certain of their
affiliates, which agreement is referred to as the Separation
Agreement. In the Separation Agreement, Lorillard agreed to
indemnify Loews and its officers, directors, employees and agents
against all costs and expenses arising out of third party claims
(including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, interest,
penalties and costs of investigation or preparation of defense),
judgments, fines, losses, claims, damages, liabilities, taxes,
demands, assessments, and amounts paid in settlement based on,
arising out of or resulting from, among other things, Loews's
ownership of or the operation of Lorillard and its assets and
properties, and its operation or conduct of its businesses at any
time prior to or following the separation of Lorillard and Loews
(including with respect to any product liability claims).

Loews is a defendant in three pending product liability actions,
each of which is a putative class action.

Pursuant to the Separation Agreement, Lorillard is required to
indemnify Loews for the amount of any losses and any legal or
other fees with respect to such cases.

Following the closing of the Lorillard Merger, RJR Tobacco assumed
Lorillard's obligations under the Separation Agreement as was
required under the Separation Agreement.


RITE AID: "Herring" Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the fiscal
year ended March 4, 2017, that the case, Herring v. Rite Aid
Corp., et al.), remains stayed.

As of March 4, 2017, the Company is aware of 10 putative class
action lawsuits that were filed by purported stockholders, against
the Company, its directors (the Individual Defendants, together
with Rite Aid, the Rite Aid Defendants), WBA and Victoria Merger
Sub Inc. ("Victoria") challenging the transactions contemplated by
the Merger agreement.

Eight (8) of these actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware (Smukler v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.,
Hirschler v. Standley, et al., Catelli v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.,
Orr v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., DePietro v. Standley, et al., Abadi
v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Mortman v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.,
Sachs Investment Grp., et al v. Standley, et al.). One (1) action
was filed in Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County (Wilson v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.).

The Company said, "The complaints in these nine (9) actions
alleged primarily that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to an allegedly
unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices
that allegedly prevented the directors from obtaining higher
offers from other  interested buyers for Rite Aid and allegedly
failing to protect against certain purported conflicts of interest
in connection with the Merger. The complaints further alleged that
we, WBA and/or Victoria aided and abetted these alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty. The complaints sought, among other things, to
enjoin the closing of the Merger as well as money damages and
attorneys' and experts' fees."

"On December 23, 2015, the eight (8) Delaware actions were
consolidated in an action captioned In re Rite Aid Corporation
Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11663-CB (the
"Consolidated Action"). In addition to the claims asserted in the
nine (9) complaints discussed above, the operative pleading in the
Consolidated Action also included allegations that the preliminary
proxy statement contained material omissions, including with
respect to the process that resulted in the Merger agreement and
the fairness opinion rendered by our banker.

"On December 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
filed a motion for expedited proceedings, which the Court orally
denied at a hearing held on January 5, 2016. On March 11, 2016,
the Court granted the plaintiffs' notice and proposed order
voluntarily dismissing the Consolidated Action as moot, while
retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating
plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On April 15, 2016,
we reached a settlement in principle related to this matter for an
immaterial amount. On May 11, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated
order regarding notice of payment thereof and final dismissal of
this matter.

"A tenth action was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania District
Court"), asserting a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against the Rite Aid Defendants,
WBA and Victoria and a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants and WBA
(Herring v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.). The complaint in the Herring
action alleges, among other things, that we and the Individual
Defendants disseminated an allegedly false and materially
misleading proxy. The complaint sought to enjoin the shareholder
vote on the proposed Merger, a declaration that the proxy was
materially false and misleading in violation of federal securities
laws and an award of money damages and attorneys' and experts'
fees.

"On January 14 and 16, 2016, respectively, the plaintiff in the
Herring action filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a
motion for expedited discovery. On January 21, 2016, the Rite Aid
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Herring complaint. At a
hearing held on January 25, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court
orally denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and
subsequently denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction on January 28, 2016.

"On March 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court appointed
Jerry Herring, Don Michael Hussey and Joanna Pauli Hussey as lead
plaintiffs for the putative class and approved their selection of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel.

"On April 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court granted the
lead plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay the Herring action for
all purposes pending consummation of the Merger."

Rite Aid is the third largest retail drugstore chain in the United
States based on both revenues and number of stores.


RITE AID: Settlement Reached in "Indergit" Case
-----------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the fiscal
year ended March 4, 2017, that the parties in the case, Indergit
v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., have reached a settlement in
principle of this matter, for an immaterial amount of money.

The Company said, "We have been named in a collective and class
action lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store
managers working in our stores at various locations around the
country. The lawsuit alleges that we failed to pay overtime to
store managers as required under the FLSA and under certain New
York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks other relief,
including liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
injunctive relief arising out of state and federal claims for
overtime pay."

"On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide
collective group of individuals who worked for the us as store
managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice of
the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the
collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store
managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action.
Discovery as to certification issues has been completed.

"On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class
certification of the New York store manager claims as to liability
only, but denied it as to damages, and denied our motion for
decertification of the nationwide collective action claims.

"We filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's
September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014.
We subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal of
the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied in
September 2014. Notice of the Rule 23 class certification as to
liability only has been sent to approximately 1,750 current and
former store managers in the state of New York. Discovery related
to the merits of the claims is ongoing.

"On January 12, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in
principle of this matter, for an immaterial amount of money, which
is subject to preliminary and final approval by the court.

"On January 19, 2017, the court entered an order staying the case
indefinitely pending preliminary and final court approval.

"In the event the settlement does not receive preliminary and/or
final approval by the court, the litigation will resume. If such
occurs, we presently are not able to either predict the outcome of
this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to
the lawsuit. Our management believes, however, that this lawsuit
is without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit."

Rite Aid is the third largest retail drugstore chain in the United
States based on both revenues and number of stores.


RITE AID: Defending California Wage-and-Hour Laws
-------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the fiscal
year ended March 4, 2017, that the Company is currently a
defendant in several lawsuits filed in state courts in California
alleging violations of California wage-and-hour laws.

The Company said, "We are currently a defendant in several
lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging violations
of California wage-and-hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining
primarily to failure to pay overtime, failure to pay for missed
meals and rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses and
failure to provide employee seating (the "California Cases"). The
class actions pertaining to failure to reimburse business expenses
and provide employee seating purport to be class actions and seek
substantial damages. The single-plaintiff and multi-plaintiff
lawsuits regarding failure to pay overtime and failure to pay for
missed meals and rest periods, in the aggregate, seek substantial
damages. We have aggressively challenged the merits of the
lawsuits and, where applicable, the allegations that the cases
should be certified as class or representative actions."

Rite Aid is the third largest retail drugstore chain in the United
States based on both revenues and number of stores.


RITE AID: Settlement of "Fenley" Case Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the fiscal
year ended March 4, 2017, that in 56the business expense class
action (Fenley v. Rite Aid Corporation, Santa Clara Superior
Court), the parties reached a settlement pursuant to which we will
pay an immaterial amount to settle the class claims. The court
granted final approval of the settlement on February 3, 2017.

Rite Aid is the third largest retail drugstore chain in the United
States based on both revenues and number of stores.


RITE AID: January 2018 Trial Set in "Hall" Case
-----------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the fiscal
year ended March 4, 2017, that the court scheduled the "Hall" case
for trial on January 26, 2018.

The Company said, "In the employee seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid
Corporation, San Diego County Superior Court), the Court, in
October 2011, granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification. We filed our motion for decertification, which
motion was granted in November 2012. Plaintiff subsequently
appealed the Court's order which appeal was granted in May 2014.
We filed a petition for review of the appellate court's decision
with the California Supreme Court, which petition was denied in
August 2014."

"Proceedings in the Hall case were stayed pending a decision by
the California Supreme Court in two similar cases. That decision
was rendered on April 4, 2016. A status conference in the case was
held on November 18, 2016, at which time the court lifted the stay
and scheduled the case for trial on January 26, 2018."

Rite Aid is the third largest retail drugstore chain in the United
States based on both revenues and number of stores.


ROLLING BONES: Fails to Pay Store Manager OT, "Inhofer" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JARED INHOFER Plaintiff, vs. ROLLING BONES OUTFITTERS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-05041-JLV (D.S.D., May 16, 2017), was
filed on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, alleging that Plaintiff worked overtime for
Defendant without receiving any of the compensation to which he
was entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Rolling Bones Outfitters in
this District as a store manager.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael W. Strain, Esq.
     STRAIN MORMAN LAW FIRM
     1134 Main Street - P.O. Box 729
     Sturgis, SD 57785
     Phone: (605) 347-3624


ROSA'S FIRST: "Salazar" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Salazar, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rosa's
First Quality Home Healthcare, LLC and Balinda Antoine,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00399, (N.D. Tex., May 16, 2017),
seeks actual damages in the amount of all unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, overtime compensation for all unpaid hours
worked in excess of forty hours with liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses of this action,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rosa's First Quality Home Healthcare operates a home healthcare
services company where Salazar worked as a home attendant. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John H. Allen III, Esq.
      Jennifer Williams, Esq.
      Amber L. Martin, Esq.
      JACKSON ALLEN & WILLIAMS, LLP
      3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Tel: (214) 521-2300
      Fax: (214) 452-5637
      Email: tallen@jacksonallenfirm.com
             jwilliams@jacksonallenfirm.com
             amartin@jacksonallenfirm.com


SAILS GROUP: Background Checks Done Illegally, Robertson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shadea Robertson, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, v. The Sails Group, Inc., Supported and Independent
Living Services (Sails) Bakersfield, Inc. and Does 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC661122 (Cal. Super., May 16,
2017), seeks statutory and civil penalties, punitive damages,
injunctive relief, costs of suit, interests, reasonable attorney's
fees and such other relief under the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act, California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act
and Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

Defendants required plaintiff to fill out and sign a "Reference
Release Form" and a "Driving Record Authorization Form. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants used these forms to acquire credit and
background reports on herself in connection with their hiring
process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper
authorization in compliance with the law. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      Thomas Segal, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, California 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
             thomas@setarehlaw.com


SAINTS & SANTOS: Laborers Class Certified in "Castellanos" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ivan L. R. Lemelle granted the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification, judicial notice, and for
disclosure of the names and addresses of the potential opt-in
plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JOSE CASTELLANOS v. SAINTS &
SANTOS CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., ET AL., Case No. 2:16-cv-02501-ILRL-
JCW (E.D. La.).

The class conditionally certified for the purposes of the
Plaintiff's collective action claims is defined as:

    "All employees of Saints & Santos Construction who performed
     or are performing manual labor for Saints & Santos
     Construction during the previous two years, January 2015 to
     May 2017, and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to
     the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 207 and who did not receive full
     overtime compensation."

The Parties are ordered to meet, confer, and thereafter submit to
the Court a joint proposal of notice.  The Defendants must provide
the Plaintiff's counsel with all potential opt-in plaintiffs'
names and last known mailing address.

Following submission of the notice to opt-in, Plaintiff Consent
forms must be postmarked and deposited in the U.S. Mail on or
before 45 days following the first mailing of the Notice.  Each
form will be marked with the date received by counsel, and
Consents to join will be treated as filed on the date marked, so
long as they are filed with the Court within one week of the date
marked.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9FahWzRA


SERVICE KING: Morales Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements
--------------------------------------------------------
Abelardo Morales, an individual, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Service
King Paint & Body, LLC, a limited Liability Company, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC661567 (Cal. Super.,
May 16, 2017), seeks compensatory damages for minimum and overtime
compensation due, interest thereon at the statutory rate, actual
damages, all wages due terminated employees, costs of suit,
prejudgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to
the California Labor Code.

Service King owns and operates a network of auto collision repair
facilities and auto painting services as well as reassembly,
cleaning of vehicle and car rental and towing services. Plaintiff
claims to have worked off-the-clock, worked through meal/rest
break, incurred business-related expenses that weren't reimbursed
and did not receive wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

      Mauro Fiore Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MAURO FIORE, JR, APC
      136 E. Lemon Avenue
      Monrovia, CA 91016
      Phone: (626) 856-5856


SEVENTY SEVEN: Faces "Scarantino" Suit Over Patterson-Uti Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Scarantino, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Seventy Seven Energy Inc., Jerry
L. Winchester, Victor Danh, Andrew Axelrod, Douglas Wall, David
King, Edward J. Dipaolo, Steven Hinchman, Patterson-Uti Energy,
Inc. and Pyramid Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2017-0278
(Del. Ch., April 10, 2017) seeks to recover damages from an
alleged proposed transaction pursuant to which Seventy Seven
Energy Inc. will be acquired by Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc. and
Pyramid Merger Sub, Inc.

The Plaintiff, a purported stockholder of Seventy Seven Energy,
challenges the disclosures made in connection with the merger.
Specifically, he alleges that Seventy Seven Energy's board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties by failing to disclose in
the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus filed in connection with the
merger certain allegedly material information.

The Company operates as a diversified oilfield services
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

   RM Law P.C.
   1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
   Berwyn, PA 19312
   Tel: (484) 324-6800


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: AirTran Appeals Class Certification Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that AirTran has filed a
conditional notice of cross-appeal to appeal the Court's order
certifying a class.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary
AirTran Airways, Inc. (collectively with AirTran Holdings, Inc.,
"AirTran") in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009. The complaint
alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted to monopolize
air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and
conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first
item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf of a
putative class of persons or entities in the United States who
directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic flights
beginning December 5, 2008. After the filing of the May 2009
complaint, various other nearly identical complaints also seeking
certification as class actions were filed in federal district
courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas,
Nevada. All of the cases were consolidated before a single federal
district court judge in Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint
was filed in the consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which
broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran
conspired to reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise
prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition
to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees paid to
AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint sought
injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged anticompetitive
activities, as well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta opposed.

On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that
plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta
conspired to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and
Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining
claims. On July 12, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class of all persons who paid first bag fees to AirTran
or Delta from December 8, 2008 to November 1, 2014 (the date on
which AirTran stopped charging first bag fees). Defendants have
appealed that decision, and the appeal is pending.

On March 29, 2017, the Court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment and dismissed all claims against AirTran. On
April 13, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
district court's judgment.

On April 24, 2017, AirTran filed a conditional notice of cross-
appeal to appeal the Court's order certifying a class.

AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend
vigorously any and all such allegations.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates Southwest Airlines, a major
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in
the United States and near-international markets.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Discovery Underway in Suit over Higher Fares
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit are currently engaged in discovery.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the
Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines
to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern
District of California, the District of Columbia, the Middle
District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the
Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois,
the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,
the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of
Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia.

On March 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint in the consolidated cases alleging that the defendants
conspired to restrict capacity from 2009 to present. The
plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the
defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek
treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
expenses.

On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this
motion. The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend these civil cases.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates Southwest Airlines, a major
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in
the United States and near-international markets.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: To Defend Against Class Suit in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend a class action lawsuit in Canada.

On July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action filed in the Federal Court in Canada
alleging that the Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta
Air Lines, and United Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and
maintain higher fares for Canadian residents traveling in the
United States and for travel between the United States and Canada.

Similar lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia on July 15, 2015, Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
on August 4, 2015, Superior Court of the Province of Quebec on
September 21, 2015, and Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
October 6, 2015.

In December 2015, the Company entered into Tolling and
Discontinuance agreements with putative class counsel in the
Federal Court and British Columbia and Ontario proceedings and a
discontinuance agreement with putative class counsel in the Quebec
proceeding. The other defendants entered into an agreement with
the same putative class counsel to stay the Federal Court, British
Columbia and Quebec proceedings and to proceed in Ontario.

On June 10, 2016, the Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
discontinue that action against the Company without prejudice and
stayed the action against the other defendants. On July 13, 2016,
the plaintiff unilaterally discontinued the action against the
Company in British Columbia.

On February 14, 2017, the Quebec Court granted the plaintiff's
motion to discontinue the Quebec proceeding against the Company
and to stay that proceeding against the other defendants.

On March 10, 2017, the Ontario Court granted the plaintiff's
motion to discontinue that proceeding as to the Company. The
Saskatchewan claim has not been served on the Company, and the
time for the Company to respond to that complaint has not yet
begun to run. The plaintiff in that case generally seeks damages
(including punitive damages in certain cases), prejudgment
interest, disgorgement of any benefits accrued by the defendants
as a result of the allegations, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees and other costs.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend this civil case in Canada.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates Southwest Airlines, a major
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in
the United States and near-international markets.


STAAR SURGICAL: Still Faces "Todd" Stockholder Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
STAAR Surgical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the stockholder securities litigation by Edward
Todd.

On July 8, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed by Edward Todd against STAAR and three officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. The
plaintiff claims that STAAR made misleading statements to and
omitted material information from our investors between February
27, 2013 and June 30, 2014 about alleged regulatory violations at
STAAR's Monrovia manufacturing facility.

On October 20, 2014, plaintiff amended its complaint, dismissed
two Company officers, added one other officer, reduced the alleged
Class Period to November 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014, and
demanded compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. On January 5,
2017, the court granted plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be determined
with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the
Complaint are without merit.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against this
lawsuit. The Company has not recorded any loss or accrual in the
accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements at March
31, 2017 and December 30, 2016 for this matter as the likelihood
and amount of loss, if any, has not been determined and is not
currently estimable.

STAAR Surgical Company designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
implantable lenses for the eye and companion delivery systems used
to deliver the lenses into the eye.


SWISSPORT FUELING: Holmes Seeks Conditional FLSA Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves the Court for conditional certification of the
collective action entitled ETHAN A. HOLMES, for himself and on
Behalf of those similarly situated v. SWISSPORT FUELING, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, SWISSPORT SA FUEL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-00669-SPC-MRM (M.D.
Fla.).

The Amended Complaint in the lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiff,
representing six other Opt-In Party Plaintiffs, as well as all
other similarly situated employees, have been damaged as a result
of the Defendants' failure to properly compensate the Plaintiffs
for all hours worked by them, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff will serve upon the Defendants' various
Interrogatories requesting the name and address of all employees
part of the Asserted Class, to wit:

     All current and former aircraft fuelers employed by the
     Defendants' located at the Southwest Florida International
     Airport, and/or located at any other airport in the State of
     Florida, and/or located at any other airport located around
     the country, who were not paid for all hours actually worked
     due to various auto-deduction policies implemented by the
     Defendants and who are, were or have been employed for any
     length of time since on or after August 30, 2013, three (3)
     years prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to require the Defendants to
produce, within 30 days, the names and last known addresses of all
aircraft fuelers employed by the Defendants at RSW, at any other
airport in the state of Florida, and located any other airport
around the country, for the period beginning three years prior to
the initiation of the lawsuit to the present; and to authorize the
Plaintiff to send notice to each employee and seeking their
consent to opt-in.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NuvVD1Dw

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael G. Fink, Esq.
          MIKE FINK LAW FIRM, P.A.
          2029 Bayside Parkway
          Fort Myers, FL 33901
          Telephone: (239) 939-1906
          E-mail: MFink@MikeFinkLaw.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patrick M. Muldowney, Esq.
          Meagan L. Martin, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          Post Office Box 112
          Orlando, FL 32802-0112
          Telephone: (407) 649-4000
          E-mail: pmuldowney@bakerlaw.com
                  mmartin@bakerlaw.com


TEREX CORPORATION: Filed Motions to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company has filed
motions to dismiss the securities lawsuit.

In 2010, the Company received complaints seeking certification of
class action lawsuits as follows:

* A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
securities laws was filed in the United States District Court,
District of Connecticut on November 18, 2010 and is entitled Sheet
Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis
Council Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al.

* A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April
12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf
of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas
J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J.
Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C.
Wang, and Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the
stockholder derivative complaint, that there were breaches of
fiduciary duties. The stockholder derivative complaint also
alleges waste of corporate assets relating to the repurchase of
the Company's shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a
result of securities sales by certain officers and directors. The
complaints seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to
estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits.

The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the
Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to
unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in
its favor.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without
merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will
continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes
that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with
federal securities laws and Delaware law with respect to these
matters.  Accordingly, the Company has filed motions to dismiss
the securities lawsuit.

The plaintiff in the stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed
with the Company to put this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome
of the motion to dismiss in connection with the securities
lawsuit.

Terex is a global manufacturer of lifting and material processing
products and services that deliver lifecycle solutions to maximize
customer return on investment.


TEXAS, USA: Smith's Bid to Certify Class of Muslim Inmates Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ron Clark denies the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification submitted in the lawsuit styled TIMOTHY JOHN SMITH
v. BRYAN COLLIER, ET AL., Case No. 6:17-cv-00073-RC-KNM (E.D.
Tex.).

Bryan Collier is the Executive Director of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice.

Timothy John Smith, an inmate confined at the Coffield Unit of the
Texas prison system, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brings the civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.  The complaint was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge K. Nicole Mitchell, who issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that Mr. Smith's motion for class certification be
denied.  Mr. Smith has filed objections.

Mr. Smith is an adherent of the Muslim faith.  His lawsuit
concerns the prison system's grooming policy in relation to the
exercise of his religious beliefs.  He acknowledges that the
prison system has adopted new guidelines because of other
lawsuits.  He complains, however, that the new guidelines do not
provide for all of the practices of his religious beliefs as a
Muslim.  He is seeking class certification for the 6,000 to 7,000
Muslim inmates, who share his beliefs.

According to the order, Judge Mitchell found that Mr. Smith has
not satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) & (b).  In
particular, as a pro se prisoner litigant, he has not demonstrated
that he would be an adequate representative in behalf of his
fellow inmates in a class action lawsuit.

The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her proposed
findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such
action, has been presented for consideration, and having made a de
novo review of the objections raised by Mr. Smith to the Report,
the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of
the Magistrate Judge are correct, and Mr. Smith's objections are
without merit, Judge Clark explains.

Therefore, the Court adopts the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court, and
denies Mr. Smith's motion for class certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7WiwcTvi


TPUSA INC: Fails to Pay Call Center Agents Overtime, Rolle Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMELLA ROLLE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. TPUSA, INC. and TPUSA-FHCS, INC. d/b/a
TELEPERFORMANCE, Delaware Corporations, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-14168-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2017), alleges that Defendants
required their Agents to work a full-time schedule, often
including overtime. However, Defendants did not compensate their
Agents for all work performed; instead, Defendants only paid their
Agents for the time spent on the telephone and available to accept
calls. This practice resulted in Agents not being paid for all
time worked and for all of their overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act."

Defendants offer call center services to their clients and
employed workers to receive and respond to customer calls on
behalf of those clients.  Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as
an hourly agent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patrick H. Gonyea, Esq.
     Richard J. McIntyre, Esq.
     McIntyre Thanasides Bringgold
     ELLIOTT GRIMALDI & GUITO, P.A.
     500 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 200
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: (813) 223-0000
     Fax: (813) 899-6069
     E-mail: patrick@mcintyrefirm.com
             nichola@mcintyrefirm.com
             rich@mcintyrefirm.com
             nichola@mcintyrefirm.com

        - and -

     Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
     Jesse L. Young, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, Suite 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: 248-355-0300
     E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
             jyoung@sommerspc.com


TRANS UNION: Faces "Taylor" Class Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Taylor, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, and Zachary Taylor, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00376-REP (E.D. Va., May 16, 2017), alleges violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Trans Union LLC develops and delivers information and risk
management solutions.  The Company offers various credit
monitoring products, risk management solutions, marketing
services, and other related solutions.  Trans Union provides its
products and services throughout the world.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7570
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
                  kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          Emily Connor Kennedy, Esq.
          Mark Clifton Leffler, Esq.
          BOLEMAN LAW FIRM
          2104 Laburnum Ave., Suite 201
          Richmond, VA 23227
          Telephone: (804) 358-9900
          Facsimile: (804) 358-8704
          E-mail: ecf@bolemanlaw.com
                  mcleffler@bolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com


UNITED PARCEL: Faces "Ortez" Suit Under FLSA & State Wage Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ORTEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC., an Ohio
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01202-CMA (D. Col., May
16, 2017), alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay him, and other employees who were
similarly situated, the federal minimum wage for all of the hours
they worked, and by failing to pay them overtime compensation for
the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week.

The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Colorado Wage Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Orders.

Also, Plaintiff alleges that UPS retaliated against him in
violation of the FLSA by terminating his employment and failing to
hire him on a permanent basis because he complained about UPS's
pay policies and practices.  UPS also retaliated against him in
violation of the public policies enunciated in Colorado Wage and
Hour Law and the Colorado Labor Peace Act.

United Parcel Service Inc. is principally engaged in the business
of international package delivery.  Plaintiff was employed by UPS
as a seasonal employee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David H. Miller, Esq.
     Adam M. Harrison, Esq.
     SAWAYA & MILLER
     1600 Ogden Street
     Denver, CO 80218
     Phone: 303.839.1650
     E-mail: dmiller@sawayalaw.com
             aharrison@sawayalaw.com


VANCO HEALTH: Faces "Macklin" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUTH MACKLIN, individually on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VANCO HEALTH CARE AND
REHABILITATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00855 (M.D.
Tenn., May 16, 2017), alleges that when Plaintiff worked more than
40 hours during a week, Defendant did not compensate her at a rate
of "one and one-half times the regular rate at which the employee
is actually employed" for the first 40 hours of work under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Vanco Health Care and Rehabilitation, Inc. is a nursing
center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nina Parsley, Esq.
     MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES
     1000 Jackson Road, Suite 225
     Goodlettsville, TN 37072
     Phone: (615) 851-1776
     E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com


VIVUS INC: Ninth Circuit Has Yet to Schedule Oral Argument
----------------------------------------------------------
Vivus, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit has not yet scheduled the matter for oral argument or
consideration in the shareholder lawsuit.

On March 27, 2014, Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin, who purport to be
purchasers of VIVUS common stock, filed an Amended Complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging securities fraud
against the Company and three of its former officers and
directors. In that complaint, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case
No. 114-cv-261427, plaintiffs asserted claims under California's
securities and consumer protection securities statutes. Plaintiffs
alleged generally that defendants misrepresented the prospects for
the Company's success, including with respect to the launch of
Qsymia, while purportedly selling VIVUS stock for personal profit.
Plaintiffs alleged losses of "at least" $2.8 million, and sought
damages and other relief.

On July 18, 2014, the same plaintiffs filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-
03263. The Jasins' federal complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, based on facts substantially similar to those alleged
in their state court action.

On September 15, 2014, pursuant to an agreement between the
parties, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their state court action
with prejudice.  Defendants moved to dismiss the federal action
and moved to dismiss again after plaintiffs amended their
complaint to include additional factual allegations and to add
seven new claims under California law.  The court granted the
latter motion on June 18, 2015, dismissing the seven California
claims with prejudice and dismissing the two federal claims with
leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on
August 17, 2015.

Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint as well.  On April 19,
2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with
prejudice and entered judgment in favor of defendants.  Plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on
May 18, 2016.

Briefing on the appeal has now been completed.  The Ninth Circuit
has not yet scheduled the matter for oral argument or
consideration.  The Company maintains directors' and officers'
liability insurance that it believes affords coverage for much of
the anticipated cost of the remaining Jasin action, subject to the
use of our financial resources to pay for our self-insured
retention and the policies' terms and conditions.

The Company and the defendant former officers and directors cannot
predict the outcome of the lawsuit, but they believe the lawsuit
is without merit and intend to continue vigorously defending
against the claims.

VIVUS is a biopharmaceutical company developing and
commercializing innovative, next-generation therapies to address
unmet medical needs in human health, with two approved therapies
and one product candidate in active clinical development.
Qsymia(R) (phentermine and topiramate extended release) is
approved by FDA for chronic weight management and STENDRA(R)
(avanafil) is approved by FDA for ED and by the EC under the trade
name, SPEDRA, for the treatment of ED in the EU. Tacrolimus is in
active clinical development for the treatment of Pulmonary
Arterial Hypertension, or PAH.


WESTERN DENTAL: Illegally Debits Clients' Accounts, King Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Renata King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Western Dental Services, Inc., and Does 1-
10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC661485 (Cal. Super, May 16,
2017), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages
and all other relief in violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendants debited Plaintiff's bank accounts on a recurring basis
without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly
authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers, used an
automatic telephone dialing system in connection with collection
on alleged debts without the call recipient's prior express
consent.

Western Dental Services, Inc. provides dental care services whom
Plaintiff allegedly owes. [BN]

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
      Phone: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: 866-633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com





                         *********


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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *