CAR_Public/170607.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, June 7, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 113



                            Headlines

AMERICA MOVIL: Unit Still Faces Class Suits on Service Quality
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wippman Sues Over Cancelled & Delayed Flights
ANGIE'S LIST: Administering Settlement in "Moore" Case
ANGIE'S LIST: "Williams" Renewed Class Certification Bid Denied
ANGIE'S LIST: Discovery Ongoing in "Crabtree" Case

APPLE HOSPITALITY: Awaits Final Approval of "Moses" Suit Deal
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Defending Against Wilchfort, et al. Suit
ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Arroyo Claims
ASSURANT INC: Still Faces Lender-Placed Insurance Programs Suits
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: 3rd Amended Securities Complaint Underway

BASIN CREEK: Faces "Orellana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BH/IGF HIDDEN: "Steiner-Out" Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
BIOGEN INC: First Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit
BODY & SOUL: Two Classes Certified Under FLSA in "Brown" Suit
BOFI HOLDING: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Class Action

BUFFALO TRACE: Bid to Transfer "Penrose" to W.D. Ky. Denied
CABELA'S INCORPORATED: Still Defends Class Suit in Kentucky
CARMAX INC: 3 Calif. Sales Consultants Class Suits Still Ongoing
CATHAY LOGISTICS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Arevalo Claims
CENTENE CORP: Federal Securities Class Action Moved to Missouri

CHINA UNICOM: Braces for Potential Securities Class Action Suit
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Still Defends Stockholders' Class Action Suit
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: 2nd Case Status Report Due September 21
COMPLETE WIRING: Faces "Morse" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COREPOWER YOGA: Osterholt's Classes Certified; Hearing on June 29

CREDIT ASSOCIATES: Faces "Kloker" Suit in D. Mont.
CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Hearing This Month on Class Action Appeal
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Florida Prosthodontics Alleges TCPA Violation
E. I. DU PONT: Medical Monitoring Registration in W.Va. Ongoing
EDWARD PRODUCE: Faces "Arias" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

ENERGY RECOVERY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Aug. 24
ENERGY TRANSFER: Date to Respond to Merger Suit Not Yet Set
ENHANCED DRILLING: Faces "Guillotte" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Anderson" Suit Transferred to E.D. Va.
ERJ DINING: "Grubb" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages

ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Against "Dougherty" Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Unit Still Defends Jerry Beeman Case in Calif.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: 2 Antitrust Class Suits vs. Unit Remain Pending
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Still Defends Firefighters' Pension Fund Case
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Consolidated Class Suit on ERISA Breach Ongoing

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Analog Insulin Products Class Action Continues
FACEBOOK INC: Trial in Class Suit to Begin Oct. 23
FACEBOOK INC: Trial in Stock Reclassification Case to Begin Sept.
FARMLAND MUTUAL: California Court Trims ERISA Suit
FCA US: Can Recover Costs Over Protective Order Violation

FIREEYE INC: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement
FOMENTO ECONOMICO: Sao Paolo Solid Waste Class Action Underway
FUN BUFFET: "Han" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
GATESTONE & CO: Class Certification Sought in "Ballaj" Suit
GLOBUS MEDICAL: Appeal in Silverstein Litigation Underway

GC SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Martin" Suit Claims
HELIX ENERGY: Securities Case Plaintiff Didn't Amend Complaint
HONDA NORTH: Faces "Merkin" Suit Over Defective Starter System
HONEST & QUALITY: "Park" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HOUSTON, TX: Kohr Seeks to Certify Homeless Class

IBM CORP: Retirement Plans Committee Still Defends ERISA Lawsuit
ICU MEDICAL: Hospira Units Face Class Suit on IV Saline Solution
INDIANA, USA: Hines Moves to Certify Class of Disabled Prisoners
INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiff's Time to Appeal Expired
J SALERNO & SON: Gonzalez's Bid to Certify Class Granted in Part

JIAO CONSULTING: "Arrazola" Suit Alleges Non-Payment of Wages
JIVE SOFTWARE: "Chun" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Wave Merger
KCG HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Proposed Sale to Virtu Financial
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Objects to Punitive Damages in Halyard Case
KINDER MORGAN: Court Denies Calif. Landowners' Class Status Bid

KINDER MORGAN: Wisconsin Price Reporting Suit Still Ongoing
LINEBARGER GOGGAN: "Hoy" Suit Moved to S. Dist. of Calif.
LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Fact Discovery to be Completed by November 30
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Says "Lennen" Suit in Early Stages
MDL 1720: Interchange Multidistrict Lawsuit vs. Visa Ongoing

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON: Bid to Dismiss "Kerpen" Suit Granted
MISSION-HOPE: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MISSOURI, USA: Endicott Moves to Certify Class of NCC Inmates
MOCON INC: Faces "Ellebracht" Lawsuit Over Ametek Merger
MY SIZE: Response to Lightcom's Class Status Bid Due Sept. 2

NEAL TRUCKING: Final Approval of "Poisson" Suit Settlement Sought
NEW RESIDENTIAL: Still Defends Securities Class Action
NEW YORK HOME CARE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Ikramov Says
NUVASIVE INC: Dec. Trial Set for Securities Class Status Appeal
PBF ENERGY: Appeal by Chalmette Refining and Eaton Still Pending

PBF ENERGY: Still Defends "Goldstein" Suit in California
PHILIP MORRIS: Bid to Certify Marlboro Light Smoker's Suit Denied
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Still Defends Consolidated Investor Class Action
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Still Defends Class Actions on Calif. Labor Laws
PPL CORP: Cane Run Environmental Claims Dismissed

PROCORP LLC: Faces "Harris" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
QUALCOMM INC: "Mackay" Suit Moved to N.D. Calif.
QUALCOMM INC: "Miller" Suit Moved to N.D. Calif.
RANDOLPH CTY, AL: Edwards Seeks to Certify Class of Arrestees
REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Strader" Parties Proceeding with Discovery

REDDY ICE: July 24 Hearing on QSF Distribution Process
ROYAL LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
SAFE STREETS: Faces "Collins" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
SEPHORA USA: "Ye" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
SIGNAL FINANCE: Faces "Castros" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

SILVER BAY: Defending Class Suits over Tricon Merger Plan
SNAP INC: Faces "Simpson" Suit Over Misleading IPO Reports
SPARK ENERGY: Faces "Rolland" Suit in New Jersey
SQUARE INC: Settlement Awaits Arbitrator's Final Approval
SUPERVALU INC: Class Suit on Coupon Market Conspiracy Ongoing

SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Class Lawsuit on 2003 C&S Transaction
SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Computer Network Intrusion Class Suit
T ROWE PRICE: Potential Class Action on ERISA Breaches Underway
TOTAL CARD: New Jersey Court Dismisses "Judah" Suit
TOWN OF BROOKLINE: Faces "Baez" Suit in District Court Mass.

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL: Faces "Dittman" Class Action
TOYOTA MOTORS: Reply to "Robey" Complaint Continued to July 10
TRC COMPANIES: Faces "Delarue" Lawsuit Over New Mountain Merger
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Shareholder Class Suits Underway
TROPICAL FALLS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Guerra" Suit Says

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over False Actual Fare Description
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Lawsuits
UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Veliz and Aguilar Sue for OT Pay
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: "Daugherty" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
VEREIT INC: Status Conference Held in American Realty Litigation

VEREIT INC: Realistic Partners Case Remains Pending
VIACOM INC: New Directors Dismissed from Class Suit
VISA INC: Settlement Reached in Merchant Class Suit in Canada
VISA INC: Proceedings on EMV Chip Liability Shift Still Ongoing
WARSAW (IN.) COMMUNITY: Williams Seeks Class Action Certification

WHIRLPOOL CORP: To Finish Consumer Claims Process in 2017
WOOD GROUP: Fenley Moves for Certification of 3 Workers Classes
WORLD GYM: Kim Sues Over Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfer
WPX ENERGY: 2nd Motion for Class Certification Pending
YIRENDAI LTD: Still Defends ADS Consolidated Class Action

ZAGG INC: Stotz-Charles Suit v. mophie Underway



                            *********


AMERICA MOVIL: Unit Still Faces Class Suits on Service Quality
--------------------------------------------------------------
America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V.'s principal brand in Mexico for
wireless voice and data services, Telcel, continues to face class
action lawsuits regarding the brand's quality of service,
according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Federal Consumer Bureau (Procuraduria Federal del Consumidor,
or "Profeco") initiated a proceeding before Mexican courts in
2011 on behalf of customers who alleged deficiencies in the
quality of Telcel's network in 2010 and breach of customer
agreements.  This proceeding is still pending and if resolved in
favor of Profeco, Telcel's customers would be entitled to
compensation for damages.

Telcel was also subject to four class actions lawsuits initiated
by customers allegedly affected by Telcel's quality of service
and wireless and broadband rates.  One of the lawsuits, filed in
Mexico City, was recently dismissed with prejudice because the
plaintiffs had filed two practically identical lawsuits, leaving
three class action lawsuits that are still pending.

America Movil said, "The Company does not currently have enough
information on these proceedings to determine whether any of the
remaining three class action lawsuits could have an adverse
effect on the Company's business and results of operations in the
event that they are resolved against Telcel.  Consequently, the
Company has not established a provision in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements for a loss arising from these
proceedings."

America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. provides telecommunications
services in Mexico and internationally.  The Company sells its
products and services through a network of retailers and service
centers to retail customers; and through sales force to corporate
customers.  America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. was founded in 2000 and
is based in Mexico City, Mexico.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wippman Sues Over Cancelled & Delayed Flights
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Wippman, individually, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. American Airlines Inc., Case No. 2017-CH-
07281 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 23, 2017), seeks to provide
compensation to the Class of passengers with confirmed
reservation on Flight AA 87, which was scheduled to depart from
Heathrow airport on April 18, 2015, but whose flights were
cancelled and or delayed by more than three hours.

American Airlines Inc. is an airline company operating primarily
from ten "hubs" within the United States, including Chicago-
O'Hare, and serves over 5 million passengers per year. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick M. Jones, Esq.
      PMJ PLLC
      100 South State Street
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312)255-7976
      Facsimile: (312) 277-3341
      E-mail: pmj@patjonesPLLC.com

         - and -

      Colin H. Dunn, Esq.
      CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES P.C.
      120 North LaSalle Street
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312)899-9090
      Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
      E-mail: chd@cliffordlaw.com


ANGIE'S LIST: Administering Settlement in "Moore" Case
------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company, with the
assistance of its third-party settlement administrator, is now in
the process of administering the settlement in the case, Moore,
et al. v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:15cv-01243-SD.

On March 11, 2015, a lawsuit seeking class action status was
filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit alleged claims for
breaches of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, fraud and fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and
violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law premised on the allegations that the Company does
not disclose that it accepts advertising payments from service
providers or that the payments allegedly impact the service
provider letter-grade ratings, the content and availability of
reviews about the provider and the provider's place in search-
result rankings.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 13, 2015, which was
granted in part on August 7, 2015.

In particular, the plaintiff's claims for breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment were
dismissed from the action.

On April 19, 2016, the parties agreed to settle the claims on a
class-wide basis. Among other relief, the settlement provided for
a cash payment of up to $2,350 to create a fund for the payment
of cash to settlement class members and for the payment of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs as approved by the Court.
Settlement class members were given the option of sharing in the
cash fund or selecting a free period of membership of up to four
months depending on the date and length of their membership with
Angie's List. The settlement also provided certain prospective
relief in the form of enhanced explanations in the Company's
membership agreement and in responses to frequently asked
questions concerning, among other things, the advertising revenue
earned from service providers.

The Company recorded a $3,500 contingent liability related to
this matter in the first quarter of 2016, and this amount
included the estimated cost of the cash fund described above as
well as the payment of reasonable notice and administration
costs, attorneys' fees and an assumption of revenue the Company
would forego as a result of certain class members selecting the
option for a free period of membership.

On December 12, 2016, the Court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement. One class member appealed the order,
but the plaintiff settled with the class member, and the class
member stipulated to dismiss the appeal.

On January 13, 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered
an order dismissing the appeal, and the settlement became final
and effective as of that date.

The Company, with the assistance of its third-party settlement
administrator, is now in the process of administering the
settlement.

On January 30, 2017, the Company made the above-referenced cash
payment into an escrow account to be paid to the class members
who selected the cash class benefit, as well as to plaintiffs'
counsel. On February 13, 2017, the Company updated its membership
agreement and relevant website FAQs to include the above-
referenced enhanced explanations regarding advertising revenue
earned from service providers.

Also, in February 2017, the Company provided instructions on how
to redeem membership extensions to the class members who selected
the membership extension class benefit. The aforementioned
contingent legal liability was subsequently reduced by $671
following completion of the election period for settlement class
members during the fourth quarter of 2016. The Company's accrual
for this matter was $2,601 and $145 as of December 31, 2016 and
March 31, 2017, respectively. Although class members may redeem
their membership extension class benefit for up to two years, the
Company considers this matter closed.

Angie's List operates a national local services consumer review
service and marketplace where members can research, shop for and
purchase local services for critical needs, as well as rate and
review the providers of these services across the United States.


ANGIE'S LIST: "Williams" Renewed Class Certification Bid Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court has denied
the plaintiffs' renewed motion for conditional certification in
the case, Williams, et al. v. Angie's List, Inc.

On April 20, 2016, a group of former employees filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana. The lawsuit alleges the Company failed to pay (i) wages
earned in a timely manner as required under Indiana Wage Statutes
and (ii) overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07) and is requesting payment of all
damages, including unpaid wages, interest, attorneys' fees and
other charges. Six amended complaints were filed, adding
additional named plaintiffs, and the Company filed its answer to
the sixth amended complaint on April 10, 2017. The plaintiffs
filed a motion for conditional certification on June 10, 2016,
and the Company filed its response brief in opposition on July
15, 2016.

The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification on November 30, 2016 but allowed the plaintiffs to
refile with a more narrow class definition. On December 9, 2016,
the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for conditional
certification.

The Company filed its response to the renewed motion on January
6, 2017, and the plaintiffs filed their reply on January 17,
2017.

The Court denied the plaintiffs' renewed motion for conditional
certification on April 28, 2017.

The Company is currently unable to determine the likely outcome
or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential
liability, if any, related to this matter, and accordingly, has
not established any reserve for this matter.

Angie's List operates a national local services consumer review
service and marketplace where members can research, shop for and
purchase local services for critical needs, as well as rate and
review the providers of these services across the United States.


ANGIE'S LIST: Discovery Ongoing in "Crabtree" Case
--------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that discovery is ongoing
in the case, Crabtree, et al. v. Angie's List, Inc.

On April 20, 2016, three former employees filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana. The lawsuit alleges the Company failed to pay (i) wages
earned in a timely manner as required under Indiana Wage Statutes
and (ii) overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07) and is requesting payment of all
damages, including unpaid wages, interest, attorneys' fees and
other charges.

The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in May 2016,
adding one additional Indiana wage statute claim. The Company
filed its answer and defenses on June 9, 2016. Discovery with
respect to this matter is ongoing.

The Company is currently unable to determine the likely outcome
or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential
liability, if any, related to this matter, and accordingly, has
not established any reserve for this matter.

Angie's List operates a national local services consumer review
service and marketplace where members can research, shop for and
purchase local services for critical needs, as well as rate and
review the providers of these services across the United States.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Awaits Final Approval of "Moses" Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality Reit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the settlement in
the case, Moses, et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al.,
remains subject to final court approval.

As disclosed in the 2016 Form 10-K, on April 22, 2014, Plaintiff
Susan Moses, purportedly a shareholder of Apple REIT Seven, Inc.
("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc. ("Apple Eight"), filed
a class action against the Company and several individual
directors on behalf of all then-existing shareholders and former
shareholders of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, who purchased
additional shares under the Dividend Reinvestment Plans ("DRIP")
of Apple Seven, Apple Eight and the Company between July 17, 2007
and February 12, 2014.

In January 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation for $5.5 million, which settlement remains
subject to final court approval, and was included in accounts
payable and other liabilities in the Company's consolidated
balance sheets as of December 31, 2016 and March 31, 2017, and in
transaction and litigation costs in the Company's consolidated
statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016.

At this time, no assurance can be given that the proposed
settlement will be approved, and therefore the actual loss
incurred could be in excess of the amount accrued as of March 31,
2017.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., together with its wholly-owned
subsidiaries (the "Company"), is a Virginia corporation that has
elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust ("REIT")
for federal income tax purposes.  The Company is a self-advised
REIT that invests in income-producing real estate, primarily in
the lodging sector, in the United States.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Defending Against Wilchfort, et al. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality Reit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is
defending against the case, Wilchfort, et al. v. Apple
Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al.

On February 24, 2017, Plaintiff Marsha Wilchfort, purportedly a
shareholder of Apple REIT Six, Inc. ("Apple Six"), Apple Seven
and Apple Eight, filed a class action against, among others, the
Company and the former individual directors of Apple Six, Apple
Seven and Apple Eight, including Mr. Glade Knight, on behalf of
all then-existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple
Six, Apple Seven and Apple Eight, who purchased additional shares
under Apple Six's, Apple Seven's and Apple Eight's DRIP between
July 17, 2007 and December 2012 (in the case of Apple Six
shareholders) or June 30, 2013 (in the case of Apple Seven and
Apple Eight shareholders).  The complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and
alleges, among other items, breach of contract under Virginia
law, tortious interference and breach of implied duty of good
faith and fair dealing.  The complaint alleges that the prices at
which Plaintiff and the purported class members purchased
additional shares through the DRIPs were not indicative of the
true value of the units of Apple Six, Apple Seven and Apple
Eight.

The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit
and intends to defend this case vigorously.  At this time, the
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this proceeding
or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to this proceeding, if any.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., together with its wholly-owned
subsidiaries (the "Company"), is a Virginia corporation that has
elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust ("REIT")
for federal income tax purposes.  The Company is a self-advised
REIT that invests in income-producing real estate, primarily in
the lodging sector, in the United States.


ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Arroyo Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Arroyo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated non-exempt current and former employees v. Arakelian
Enterprises, Inc., Athens Disposal Company, Inc., and Does 1 to
100, Inclusive, Case No. BC662148 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work more than 8 hours per day and/or more
than 40 hours per workweek.

The Defendants own and operate waste collection and recycling
company in Los Angeles County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Sweeney, Esq.
      THE SWEENEY LAW FIRM
      15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 500
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (323) 486-2508
      Facsimile: (747) 998-1201
      E-mail: bsweeney@thesweeneylawfirm.com


ASSURANT INC: Still Faces Lender-Placed Insurance Programs Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is a
defendant in class actions in a number of jurisdictions regarding
its lender-placed insurance programs. These cases assert a
variety of claims under a number of legal theories. The
plaintiffs seek premium refunds and other relief. The Company
continues to defend itself vigorously in these class actions.

"We have participated and may participate in settlements on terms
that we consider reasonable given the strength of our defenses
and other factors," the Company said.

Assurant, Inc. is a holding company whose subsidiaries globally
provide risk management solutions in the housing and lifestyle
markets, protecting where consumers live and the goods they buy.
The Company is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol "AIZ."


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: 3rd Amended Securities Complaint Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
intends to continue to vigorously defend against the third
amended complaint in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit.

Two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and
certain of the Company's former officers and directors, (Tuan Ha-
Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho),
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, one captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-JLT, filed on
May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-JLT, filed on
May 31, 2013.

On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the
complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an amended
complaint was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended complaint
purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased
the Company's common stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1,
2013. This consolidated amended complaint was dismissed without
prejudice on March 20, 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a
second amended complaint bringing similar allegations, and which
no longer named Mr. DePinho as a defendant.

The Company moved to dismiss again, and after a second round of
briefing and oral argument, the court ruled in the Company's
favor and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice
on November 18, 2015.

The lead plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. They also
filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the district court's
judgment, which the Company has opposed.

On January 3, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to
vacate the dismissal and judgment and Plaintiffs filed a motion
to dismiss their appeal on February 8, 2017.

On February 2, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint,
on behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock between May
16, 2012 and May 1, 2013, alleging claims similar to those
alleged in the prior complaints, namely that the Company and
certain of its former officers and directors violated Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false
and/or misleading statements concerning the phase 3 trial design
and results for its TIVO-1 clinical trial in an effort to lead
investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from
the FDA.

On March 2, 2017, the Company filed an answer to the third
amended complaint, and the parties have initiated discovery. The
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and
other costs.

The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However,
there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its
defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund
any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action.
Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") is a biopharmaceutical
company dedicated to advancing a broad portfolio of targeted
therapeutics for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need.


BASIN CREEK: Faces "Orellana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Orellana, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Basin Creek Corporation, Ros & Rol Corporation and
Rolando Rosales a/k/a Jose Rolando Rosales, Case No. 3:17-cv-
01380-N (N.D. Tex., May 24, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 2470
Walnut Hill Lane Dallas TX 75229. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq.
      5440 Harvest Hill, Suite 145E
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Telephone: (214) 420-3366
      Facsimile: (214) 206-9802
      E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com

BH/IGF HIDDEN: "Steiner-Out" Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kim Steiner-Out on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BH/IGF
Hidden Harbour Apartments, LLC, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-17-005159 was removed on April 19, 2017
from the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-60773-BB to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia
O. Valle.

BH/IGF Hidden Harbour Apartments, LLC offers construction and
project management for commercial high-rise buildings,
recreational, institutional, and government facilities, public
works projects, retail and commercial outlets and commercial
office facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Steven Thomas Simmons , Jr., Esq.
   Varnell and Warwick, P.A.
   P.O. Box 1870
   Lady Lake, FL 32158
   Tel: (352) 753-8600
   Fax: (352) 504-3301

The Defendant is represented by:

   Stefanie Silverman Copelow, Esq.
   Cole, Scott &Kissane, P.A.
   222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120
   West Palm Beach, FL 33401
   Tel: (561) 383-9203
   Email: stefanie.copelow@csklegal.com

        - and -

   S. Jonathan Vine, Esq.
   Cole Scott &Kissane
   222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120
   Esperante Building
   West Palm Beach, FL 33401
   Tel: (561) 383-9200
   Fax: (561) 683-8977
   Email: Jonathan.Vine@csklegal.com


BIOGEN INC: First Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on May 12, 2017,
affirmed dismissal of the putative securities class action In re
Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 16-1976.

According to Biogen's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2017, the Company and certain current and former officers are
defendants in In re Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation, filed by a
shareholder on August 18, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.  The amended complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C. Section
78j(b) and Section 78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.  The
lead plaintiff sought a declaration of the action as a class
action, certification as a representative of the class and its
counsel as class counsel, and an award of damages, interest and
attorneys' fees.

According to an article at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom's
Web site, the action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts shortly after Biogen announced that it
was revising its full-year 2015 financial guidance downward
principally due to slowing growth of the company's multiple
sclerosis drug, TECFIDERA. Following that July 2015 announcement,
Biogen's share price fell 22 percent (representing an
approximately $20 billion market cap decline).

The action alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act against Biogen and certain of its current
and former officers. Citing adjective-laden statements from 10
anonymous "confidential witnesses," the plaintiffs alleged that
the defendants intentionally misled the investing public
regarding the impact on TECFIDERA sales resulting from the
company's October 2014 announcement that a patient treated with
the drug had died from complications associated with the rare
neurological disease progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
(PML).

On July 1, 2016 the U.S. District Court dismissed the case and in
September 2016 denied the plaintiff's motion to vacate the order
of dismissal.

According to the Skadden article, the district court dismissed
the case with prejudice for failure to meet the heightened
pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act (PSLRA). In a 72-page opinion, the court observed that the
plaintiffs' complaint and brief "gloss[ed] over" Biogen's
repeated public disclosures about the impact of the PML event on
TECFIDERA's performance and held that the "[d]efendants' warnings
about the PML death fall far short of reckless conduct." Weighing
competing inferences, the district court held that far more
compelling than any inference of fraud is that the "defendants
were, at worst, overly optimistic in attempting to predict the
PML death's effect on revenues." The district court also held
that nearly all of the alleged misstatements were immaterial as a
matter of law or protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor provisions
for forward-looking statements.

The plaintiff appealed.

According to the Skadden article, the First Circuit affirmed,
holding that the complaint failed to meet the rigorous pleading
standards for allegations of scienter under the PSLRA. In that
regard, the First Circuit observed that the statements attributed
to confidential witnesses "are so lacking in connecting detail
that they cannot give rise to a strong inference of scienter" and
that "[t]he statements do not even begin to quantify the
magnitude of the sales decline at the company level," nor do they
"explain with any precision whether the sales decline resulted
from higher discontinuations, fewer new starts, changes in the
market, or some combination of these factors." The First Circuit
concluded that "the confidential witness statements are
consistent with the defendants' public disclosures," which
"repeatedly returned to the PML incident as one factor impacting
TECFIDERA's performance."

Skadden noted that this is the second time in recent years that
the First Circuit has affirmed dismissal of a putative securities
class action against Biogen. In 2008, the court affirmed
dismissal of a putative securities fraud class action filed just
days after a different Biogen drug was temporarily and
voluntarily withdrawn from the market. N.J. Carpenters Pension &
Annuity Funds v. Biogen IDEC Inc., 537 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2008).
That case, which the First Circuit described as one that is
"paradigmatic of securities fraud cases against drug development
companies," was similarly dismissed for failure to plead the
requisite strong inference of scienter.

Biogen also disclosed in the regulatory filing that the Company
and certain current and former officers are defendants in an
action filed by another shareholder on October 20, 2016, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts related to
the matter described above.  The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C Section 78j(b) and Section
78t(a) and 17 C.F.R.  Section 240.10b-5 and seeks a declaration
of the action as a class action and an award of damages, interest
and attorneys' fees.

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


BODY & SOUL: Two Classes Certified Under FLSA in "Brown" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert G. James granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify collective action
classes and to facilitate notice under the Fair Labor Standards
Act in the lawsuit entitled MARGARITE SAMPSON BROWN, on behalf of
herself and all those similarly situated v. BODY & SOUL SERVICES,
INC., DERENDA FLOWERS, AND SHEILA GREEN, Case No. 3:16-cv-00824-
RGJ-KLH (W.D. La.).

To the extent that the Plaintiff moves to certify the two FLSA
collective actions, the Motion is granted, Judge James opined.
However, Judge James added, the Late Payment Class is subject to
the temporal limitation proposed by Defendants.

The Court ordered the parties to file a joint or unopposed motion
for approval of notices and opt-in forms within 14 days.  Within
that same period, the Defendants shall provide the Plaintiff with
the names and mailing addresses for the prospective members of
the collective action classes.

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


BOFI HOLDING: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
BofI Holding, Inc. continues to defend itself in a consolidated
securities class action and related lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,
and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Golden Case").

On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second
putative class action lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc.,
et al, and also brought in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California (the "Hazan Case").

On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were
consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the "Class Action"), and the
Houston Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead
plaintiff.

The Class Action complaint was amended by a certain Consolidated
Amended Class Complaint filed on April 11, 2016.  The Class
Action plaintiff seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
Court.

On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et
al, and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Mandalevy Case").

The complaints filed in the Golden Case, the Hazan Case, and the
Mandalevy Case allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose the wrongful
conduct that is alleged in a complaint that was filed in a
wrongful termination of employment lawsuit (the "Employment
Matter"), and that as a result the Company's statements regarding
its internal controls, as well as portions of its financial
statements, were false and misleading.

The Company and the other named defendants dispute the
allegations of wrongdoing advanced by the plaintiffs in the Class
Action, the Mandalevy Case, and in the Employment Matter, as well
as those plaintiffs' statement of the underlying factual
circumstances, and are vigorously defending each case.

In addition to the Class Action, two separate shareholder
derivative actions were filed in December 2015, purportedly on
behalf of the Company.  The first derivative action, Calcaterra
v. Garrabrants, et al, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on December 3,
2015.  The second derivative action, Dow v. Micheletti, et al,
was filed in the San Diego County Superior Court on December 16,
2015.  A third derivative action, DeYoung v. Garrabrants, et al,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on January 22, 2016, a fourth derivative
action, Yong v. Garrabrants, et al, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
January 29, 2016, and a fifth derivative action, Laborers Pension
Trust Fund of Northern Nevada v. Allrich et al, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on February 2, 2016.  Each of these five derivative
actions names the Company as a nominal defendant, and certain of
its officers and directors as defendants.  Each complaint sets
forth allegations of breaches of fiduciary duties, gross
mismanagement, abuse of control, and unjust enrichment against
the defendant officers and directors.  The plaintiffs in these
derivative actions seek damages in unspecified amounts on the
Company's behalf from the officer and director defendants,
certain corporate governance actions, and an award of their costs
and attorney's fees.

On June 9, 2016, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California ordered the four cases pending
before it to be consolidated, appointed lead counsel in the
consolidated action, and ordered the parties to meet and confer
regarding a schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint
and defendants' response to the complaint.

Pursuant to the June 9, 2016 order, counsel have met and
conferred regarding proposals for (a) the time for plaintiffs to
file a consolidated complaint or provide notice of plaintiffs'
intent to rely upon the original Complaint in Case No. 3:15-cv-
02722-GPC-KSC (the "operative complaint"); (b) the time for
defendants to respond to the operative complaint; and (c) a
schedule for briefing any motion to dismiss that may be filed by
a defendant.  A stipulation setting forth the agreed litigation
schedule has been submitted to the Court.

The fifth derivative action, which is pending before the San
Diego County Superior Court, has been stayed by agreement of the
parties.

On September 27, 2016, the Court dismissed the Class Action, with
leave to amend, as to defendants Andrew Micheletti, Paul
Grinberg, Nicholas Mosich and James Argalas.  The Court denied
the Motion to Dismiss with respect to the Company and Gregory
Garrabrants.  The Company and the other defendants dispute the
allegations of wrongdoing and are vigorously defending these
purported derivative actions.

On November 25, 2016, the putative class action plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint, which includes the
previously dismissed defendants.

On December 23, 2016, the Company and other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss such Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

BofI Holding, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States.  The Company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and
time deposit accounts.  BofI Holding, Inc. was incorporated in
1999 and is based in San Diego, California.


BUFFALO TRACE: Bid to Transfer "Penrose" to W.D. Ky. Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the
Defendants' motion to transfer venue of the case captioned
STEPHEN PENROSE, JAMES THOMAS, JOSEPH GUARDINO, and DANIEL POPE,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BUFFALO TRACE DISTILLERY, INC., OLD CHARTER
DISTILLERY CO. and SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:17cv294 HEA (E.D. Mo.) to the Western District of Kentucky.

The Plaintiff filed this putative class action based on alleged
violations of various state consumer protection laws.  They claim
that the Defendants misrepresented that Old Charter bourbon has
been aged eight years through implication because the number 8
remains on its bottles.  Previously, the bottles stated that the
bourbon had been aged eight years.  The current bottles no longer
state that the bourbon is "aged" 8 "years," rather, the bottles
just contains the number 8 in the same location as the old
bottles.

The Court held that both the convenience and interest of justice
factors require consideration of the Plaintiffs' choice of forum.

The Court held that the Defendants' argument that all the
Plaintiffs, except Stephen Penrose will not be inconvenienced by
litigating in Kentucky over Missouri, since none of the other
Plaintiffs are located in Missouri, fails to acknowledge that the
out of the Missouri Plaintiffs chose to litigate this action in
Missouri.

Moreover, the Court pointed out that the parties have not
identified any non-party witnesses that would be required to
travel to Missouri or provide deposition testimony.  Thus, the
convenience of the witnesses weighs in favor the Plaintiffs at
this point.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2017 opinion, memorandum
and order is available at https://is.gd/pqjQhC from Leagle.com

Stephen Penrose, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor
and Fisher, P.A..

James Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor
and Fisher, P.A..

Joseph Guardino, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor
and Fisher, P.A..

Daniel Pope, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor and
Fisher, P.A..

Buffalo Trace Distillery, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Michelle Carrie Doolin, Cooley, LLP, William R. Bay, Thompson
Coburn, LLP & Brandi Lynne Burke, Thompson Coburn, LLP.

Old Charter Distillery Co., Defendant, represented by Michelle
Carrie Doolin, Cooley, LLP, William R. Bay, Thompson Coburn, LLP
& Brandi Lynne Burke, Thompson Coburn, LLP.

Sazerac Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michelle Carrie
Doolin, Cooley, LLP, William R. Bay, Thompson Coburn, LLP &
Brandi Lynne Burke, Thompson Coburn, LLP.


CABELA'S INCORPORATED: Still Defends Class Suit in Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cabela's Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the Company is party
to a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that the
Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing
calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to cellular
telephones without first obtaining consent due to reassignment of
the number or revocation of prior consent. At the present time,
the Company cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss
that may arise from this matter. Accordingly, the Company has not
accrued a liability related to this matter.


CARMAX INC: 3 Calif. Sales Consultants Class Suits Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. entities continue to defend themselves in three
putative class proceedings asserting wage and hour claims with
respect to CarMax sales consultants in California, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2017.

The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage, provide
meal periods and rest breaks, pay statutory/contractual wages,
reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized
wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorney General
Act claims.

On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss et al., v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West
Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Placer.  The Weiss lawsuit seeks
civil penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of
attorneys' fees.

On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, Los Angeles.  The Gomez lawsuit seeks
declaratory relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

On September 7, 2016, James Rowland v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a
putative class action, was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.  The Rowland
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.

The Company said, "We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of
the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome in these matters."

CarMax Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of
used vehicles in the United States.  The Company operates in two
segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance.  The
Company was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.


CATHAY LOGISTICS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Arevalo Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elmer Arevalo, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals v. Cathay Logistics LLC, Versa Logistics, LLC, and
Does l through 50, Case No. BC662231 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23,
2017), arises out of the Defendant's misclassification of
employees, failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, unlawful deductions, and failure to reimburse drivers
for business expenses in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants are in the business of providing various shipping
services throughout California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvin M. Gomez, Esq.
      GOMEZ LAW GROUP
      2725 Jefferson Street, Suite 7
      Carlsbad, CA 92008
      Telephone: (858) 552-0000
      Facsimile: (760) 720-5217
      E-mail: alvingomez@thegomezlawgroup.com


CENTENE CORP: Federal Securities Class Action Moved to Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The federal securities class action filed against Centene
Corporation, among other defendants, has been transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

On November 14, 2016, a putative federal securities class action
was filed against the Company and certain of its executives in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On March 1, 2017, the court entered an order transferring the
matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company's
accounting and related disclosures for certain liabilities
acquired in the acquisition of Health Net violated federal
securities laws.

Centene Corp. stated, "The Company denies any wrongdoing and is
vigorously defending itself against these claims.  Nevertheless,
this matter is subject to many uncertainties and the Company
cannot predict how long this litigation will last or what the
ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in this matter
could potentially have a materially adverse impact on our
financial position and results of operations."

Centene Corporation operates as a diversified and multi-national
healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to
under-insured and uninsured individuals in the United States.  It
operates through two segments, Managed Care and Specialty
Services.  The Company provides its services through primary and
specialty care physicians, hospitals, and ancillary providers.
Centene Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
St. Louis, Missouri.


CHINA UNICOM: Braces for Potential Securities Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
China Unicom (Hong Kong) Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 that it is aware of certain
U.S. law firms investigating possible class action claims against
the Company in relation to the unlawful conduct involving its
former chairman and chief executive officer, Mr. Chang Xiaobing.

Mr. Chang has been accused of accepting bribes worth
approximately RMB3.76 million between 1998 and 2014. On April 18,
2017, Mr. Chang pleaded guilty to these charges at trial and is
awaiting sentencing.  He served as the Company's chairman and
chief executive officer between 2004 and 2015.

On or around April 18, 2017, certain law firms in the United
States that specialize in representing investors as plaintiffs in
class action litigation have publicly stated that they are
investigating potential federal securities laws claims against
the Company and its representatives on behalf of the Company's
investors relating to the misconduct of Mr. Chang.

The Company said, "We were not aware of any actual claims or
legal proceedings in this regard as of the date of this annual
report.  However, the aforementioned investigations and any other
threatened or actual claims or legal proceedings against the
Company or its representatives, regardless of whether or not they
are meritorious, could materially and adversely affect our
reputation, operations and the trading price of our ordinary
shares and ADSs."

China Unicom (Hong Kong) Limited, an investment holding company,
provides telecommunications services in the People's Republic of
China.  The Company offers cellular and fixed-line voice and
related value-added, broadband and other Internet-related,
information communications technology, and business and data
communications services.  The Company was founded in 2000 and is
based in Central, Hong Kong.


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Still Defends Stockholders' Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clovis Oncology, Inc. continues to defend against a class action
lawsuit, Clovis said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On November 19, 2015, Steve Kimbro, a purported shareholder of
Clovis, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Kimbro
Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
Kimbro Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and
November 15, 2015. The Kimbro Complaint generally alleges that
Clovis and certain of its officers violated federal securities
laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for
market success of rociletinib. The Kimbro Complaint seeks
unspecified damages.

Also on November 19, 2015, a second purported shareholder class
action complaint was filed by Sonny P. Medina, another purported
Clovis shareholder, containing similar allegations to those set
forth in the Kimbro Complaint, also in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado (the "Medina Complaint"). The
Medina Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased Clovis stock between May 20, 2014 and
November 13, 2015. On November 20, 2015, a third complaint was
filed by John Moran in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "Moran Complaint"). The
Moran Complaint contains similar allegations to those asserted in
the Kimbro and Medina Complaints and purports to be asserted on
behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock between
October 31, 2013 and November 13, 2015.

On December 14, 2015, Ralph P. Rocco, a fourth purported
shareholder of Clovis, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Rocco
Complaint"). The Rocco Complaint contains similar allegations to
those set forth in the previous complaints and purports to be
asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis
stock between October 31, 2013 and November 15, 2015.

On January 19, 2016, a number of motions were filed in both the
District of Colorado and the Northern District of California
seeking to consolidate the shareholder class actions into one
matter and for appointment of a lead plaintiff. All lead
plaintiff movants other than M. Arkin (1999) LTD and Arkin
Communications LTD (the "Arkin Plaintiffs") subsequently filed
notices of non-opposition to the Arkin Plaintiffs' application.

On February 2, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed a motion to
transfer the Moran Complaint to the District of Colorado (the
"Motion to Transfer"). Also on February 2, 2016, the defendants
filed a statement in the Northern District of California
supporting the consolidation of all actions in a single court,
the District of Colorado. On February 3, 2016, the Northern
District of California court denied without prejudice the lead
plaintiff motions filed in that court pending a decision on the
Motion to Transfer.

On February 16, 2016, the defendants filed a memorandum in
support of the Motion to Transfer, and plaintiff Moran filed a
notice of non-opposition to the Motion to Transfer. On February
17, 2016, the Northern District of California court granted the
Motion to Transfer.

On February 18, 2016, the Medina court issued an opinion and
order addressing the various motions for consolidation and
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the District of
Colorado actions. By this ruling, the court consolidated the
Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions into a single proceeding. The
court also appointed the Arkin Plaintiffs as the lead plaintiffs
and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman as lead counsel for the
putative class.

On April 1, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs and the defendants filed a
stipulated motion to set the schedule for the filing of a
consolidated complaint in the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions
(the "Consolidated Complaint") and the responses thereto,
including the defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss"), and to stay discovery and
related proceedings until the District of Colorado issues a
decision on the Motion to Dismiss. The stipulated motion was
entered by the District of Colorado on April 4, 2016.

Subject to further agreed-upon extensions by the parties, the
Arkin Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on May 6, 2016.
The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company and
certain of its current and former officers (the "Clovis
Defendants"), certain underwriters (the "Underwriter Defendants")
for a Company follow-on offering conducted in July 2015 (the
"July 2015 Offering") and certain Company venture capital
investors (the "Venture Capital Defendants"). The Consolidated
Complaint alleges that defendants violated particular sections of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). The purported
misrepresentations and omissions concern allegedly misleading
statements about rociletinib. The consolidated action is
purportedly brought on behalf of investors who purchased the
Company's securities between May 31, 2014 and April 7, 2016 (with
respect to the Exchange Act claims) and investors who purchased
the Company's securities pursuant or traceable to the July 2015
Offering (with respect to the Securities Act claims). The
Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and
recessionary damages.

On May 23, 2016, the Medina, Kimbro, Rocco, and Moran actions
were consolidated for all purposes in a single proceeding in the
District of Colorado.

The Clovis Defendants, the Underwriter Defendants and the Venture
Capital Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 27, 2016,
the Arkin Plaintiffs filed their opposition on September 23,
2016, and the defendants filed their replies on October 14, 2016.

On February 9, 2017, Judge Raymond P. Moore of the District of
Colorado issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying
in part the Clovis Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Clovis
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was granted with prejudice with
respect to named defendant Gillian Ivers-Read and granted with
respect to certain statements determined by the Court to be
nonactionable statements of opinion or optimism. The Clovis
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was otherwise denied. Next, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the Underwriter
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Underwriter Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss was granted without prejudice with respect to
Plaintiffs' claim under Section 12(a) of the Securities Act and
granted insofar as the Court determined that certain statements
challenged under Section 11 of the Securities Act are
nonactionable statements of opinion or optimism. The Opinion and
Order provided that Plaintiffs shall have until February 23, 2017
to file an amended pleading directed solely as to their Section
12(a) claim against the Underwriter Defendants. The Underwriters
Defendants' Motion to dismiss was otherwise denied.  Finally, the
court granted the Venture Capital Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
with prejudice.

On April 11, 2017, the Court entered a scheduling order providing
for, inter alia, a schedule for completing document and fact
discovery, as well as setting briefing schedules for motions for
class certification and motions for summary judgment.

On March 14, 2017, the Clovis Defendants and the Arkin Plaintiffs
participated in a mediation, which did not result in a
settlement.

"We intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit, but there can be no
assurance that the defense will be successful," the Company said.

Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring,
developing and commercializing innovative anti-cancer agents in
the United States, Europe and additional international markets.


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: 2nd Case Status Report Due September 21
--------------------------------------------------------
Clovis Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the lawsuit by the
Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and Health & Welfare
Trusts, the parties' second status report as to the progress of
the Colorado Action is due on September 21, 2017.

On January 22, 2016, the Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension
and Health & Welfare Trusts, a purported shareholder of Clovis,
filed a purported class action complaint (the "Electrical Workers
Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers,
directors, investors and underwriters in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Mateo. The Electrical
Workers Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased stock in Clovis' July 8, 2015 follow-on
offering. The Electrical Workers Complaint generally alleges that
the defendants violated the Securities Act because the offering
documents for the July 8, 2015 follow-on offering contained
allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the progress
toward FDA approval and the potential for market success of
rociletinib. The Electrical Workers Complaint seeks unspecified
damages.

On February 25, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and thereafter moved to transfer the case to the
District of Colorado ("Motion to Transfer"). On March 2, 2016,
the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to San Mateo
County Superior Court ("Motion to Remand"). Following briefing on
the Motion to Transfer and the Motion to Remand, the Northern
District of California held a hearing on April 18, 2016
concerning the Motion to Remand, at the conclusion of which the
court granted to the Motion to Remand. On May 5, 2016, the
Northern District of California issued a written decision and
order granting the Motion to Remand the case to the Superior
Court, County of San Mateo and denying the Motion to Transfer as
moot.

While the case was pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, the parties entered into
a stipulation extending the defendants' time to respond to the
Electrical Workers Complaint for 30 days following the filing of
an amended complaint by plaintiff or the designation by plaintiff
of the Electrical Workers Complaint as the operative complaint.
Following remand, Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Mateo so-ordered the stipulation on June 22, 2016.

On June 30, 2016, the Electrical Workers Plaintiffs filed an
amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended
Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, certain underwriters
for the July 2015 Offering and certain Company venture capital
investors. The Amended Complaint purports to assert claims under
the Securities Act based upon alleged misstatements in Clovis'
offering documents for the July 2015 Offering. The Amended
Complaint includes new allegations about the Company's
rociletinib disclosures.  The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified
damages.

Pursuant to a briefing schedule ordered by the court on July 28,
2016, defendants filed a motion to stay the Electrical Workers
action pending resolution of the Medina, Kimbro, Moran, and Rocco
actions in the District of Colorado ("Motion to Stay"), and a
demurrer to the Amended Complaint, on August 15, 2016; plaintiffs
filed their oppositions on August 31, 2016; and the defendants
filed their reply briefs on September 15, 2016.

On September 23, 2016, after hearing oral argument, the San Mateo
Superior Court granted defendants' motion to stay proceedings
pending resolution of the related securities class action
captioned Medina v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., et. al., No. 1:15-cv-
2546 (the "Colorado Action").  Per the order to stay proceedings,
the San Mateo Superior Court will defer issuing a ruling on
defendants' pending demurrer, and the parties' first status
report as to the progress of the Colorado Action was filed with
the San Mateo Superior Court on March 23, 2017. The parties'
second status report as to the progress of the Colorado Action is
due on September 21, 2017.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations
contained in the Electrical Workers Amended Complaint, but there
can be no assurance that the defense will be successful.

Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring,
developing and commercializing innovative anti-cancer agents in
the United States, Europe and additional international markets.


COMPLETE WIRING: Faces "Morse" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Morse, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Complete Wiring Concepts,
LLC and Tyrone Christian, Case No. 2:17-cv-00453-EAS-EPD (S.D.
Ohio, May 24, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an electrical contraction company
in the Southern District of Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
      COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Telephone: (614) 949-1181
      Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
      E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com


COREPOWER YOGA: Osterholt's Classes Certified; Hearing on June 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Manish S. Shah granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification filed in the lawsuit styled ZURI
OSTERHOLT and MICHELLE BENIKOV v. COREPOWER YOGA, LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-05089 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs Zuri Osterholt and Michelle Benikov taught yoga
classes for CorePower first as interns and later as instructors.
The Plaintiffs brought claims against CorePower under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the
Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.  In the Motion:

   -- Plaintiff Osterholt seeks to represent a class of interns
      defined as "all persons who have been employed by CorePower
      Yoga as interns throughout the United States, from three
      years prior and up through the date the order granting
      conditional certification is entered"; and

   -- Plaintiffs Osterholt and Benikov seek to represent an
      instructor class, consisting of "all persons who have been
      employed by CorePower Yoga as instructors throughout the
      United States, from [three] years prior and up through the
      date the order granting conditional certification is
      entered."

In his memorandum opinion and order, Judge Shah directs CorePower
to disclose to the Plaintiffs identifying information on the
class by June 8, 2017.  The parties must file a status report
with a proposed case schedule (to include proposed deadlines for
the close of discovery, dispositive motions, and motions for
class certification and decertification of the collective action)
and any new objections to the notice by June 15, 2017.

A status hearing is set for June 29, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.

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


CREDIT ASSOCIATES: Faces "Kloker" Suit in D. Mont.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Associates,
Inc.  The case is styled as Maureen Kloker, on behalf of herself
and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Associates,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00048-CCL (D. Mont., April 20,
2017).

Credit Associates Inc. provides collection services in Montana
since 1944, specializing in medical, retail, and professional
collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gregory John Trangmoe, Esq.
   162 Flanagin Lane
   Stevensville, MT 59870
   Tel: (406) 880-2009
   Email: Greg@eMoe.net


CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Hearing This Month on Class Action Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Equity Partners LP and Crestwood Midstream Partners LP
said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that a hearing is scheduled in June 2017 on
a unitholder's appeal of the order approving a class action
settlement.

On May 20, 2015, Lawrence G. Farber, a purported unitholder of
Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the Southern District
of the United States, Houston Division, as a putative class
action on behalf of Crestwood Midstream's unitholders, entitled
Lawrence G. Farber, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, Crestwood
Midstream GP LLC, Robert G. Phillips, Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G.
France, Philip D. Gettig, Warren H. Gfellar, David Lumpkins, John
J. Sherman, David Wood, Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Crestwood
Equity GP LLC, CEQP ST Sub LLC, MGP GP, LLC, Crestwood Midstream
Holdings LP, and Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC. This complaint
alleges, among other things, that Crestwood Midstream's general
partner breached its fiduciary duties, certain individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due
care, and that other defendants aided and abetted such breaches.

On July 21, 2015, Isaac Aron, another purported unitholder of
Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the Southern District
of the United States, Houston Division, as a putative class
action on behalf of Crestwood Midstream's unitholders, entitled
Isaac Aron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated vs. Robert G. Phillps, Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France,
Philip D. Getting, Warren H. Gfeller, David Lumpkins, John J.
Sherman, David Wood, Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP Crestwood
Midstream Holdings LP, Crestwood Midstream GP LLC, Crestwood Gas
Services GP, LLC, Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Crestwood Equity
GP LLC, CEQP ST Sub LLC and MGP GP, LLC. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that Crestwood Midstream's general partner
and certain individual defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 by
filing an alleged incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the SEC.

On August 12, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to consolidate
the Farber and Aron cases, which the court granted on September
4, 2015. Farber subsequently dismissed his claims against all the
defendants on September 16, 2015. Aron filed a motion for
temporary restraining order and requested an expedited
preliminary injunction hearing, which had been scheduled for
September 23, 2015.

On September 22, 2015, however, the parties entered into a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with respect to a proposed
settlement of the Aron lawsuit. The settlement contemplated by
the MOU is subject to a number of conditions, including notice to
the class, limited confirmatory discovery and final court
approval of the settlement.  In October 2016, the court approved
the settlement.

On November 7, 2016, a unitholder filed an appeal of the
settlement and a hearing is scheduled in June 2017. If the appeal
is denied, the settlement will become final.

"We do not expect the settlement to have a material impact to our
consolidated financial statements," the Company said.

Crestwood Equity is a publicly-traded (NYSE: CEQP) Delaware
limited partnership that develops, acquires, owns or controls,
and operates primarily fee-based assets and operations within the
energy midstream sector.  Crestwood provides broad-ranging
infrastructure solutions across the value chain to service
premier liquids-rich natural gas and crude oil shale plays across
the United States. We own and operate a diversified portfolio of
crude oil and natural gas gathering, processing, storage and
transportation assets and connect fundamental energy supply with
energy demand across North America. Crestwood Equity is a holding
company and all of its consolidated operating assets are owned by
or through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Crestwood Midstream, a
Delaware limited partnership.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Florida Prosthodontics Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Prosthodontics, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
DENTSPLY SIRONA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 6:17-cv-00899-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla., May 18, 2017), alleges that
Defendant continues to send unsolicited fax ads in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Dentsply Sirona, Inc. is a producer of dental equipment and
consumables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel F. Dill, Esq.
     THE DILL LAW GROUP PA
     350 E. Pine Street
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Phone: 407 367 0278
     Fax: 407 206 3297
     E-mail: ddill@dillawgroup.com


E. I. DU PONT: Medical Monitoring Registration in W.Va. Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the registration
process and eligibility screening for a medical monitoring
program in connection to a class action settlement agreement is
ongoing.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA (collectively,
perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium
salt) in drinking water.  DuPont and attorneys for the class
reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000 residents
(the Leach Settlement).

In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses
of US$23 million and made a payment of US$70 million, which class
counsel designated to fund a community health project.  The
company funded a series of health studies which were completed in
October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (the C8
Science Panel).  The studies were conducted in communities
exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on
whether any probable link exists, as defined in the Leach
Settlement Agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease.
The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
Leach Settlement Agreement, between exposure to PFOA and
pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney
cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis;
and diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors
released its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic
testing of eligible class members for the six human diseases for
which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists.

In September 2014, the medical panel recommended follow-up
screening and diagnostic testing three years after initial
testing, based on individual results.  The medical panel has not
communicated its anticipated schedule for completion of its
protocol.  Under the Leach Settlement Agreement, the Company is
obligated to fund up to US$235 million for a medical monitoring
program for eligible class members and, in addition,
administrative costs associated with the program, including class
counsel fees.

In January 2012, the company established and put US$1 million
into an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by
the settlement agreement.  The balance in the escrow account must
be at least US$0.5 million; as a result, transfers of additional
funds may be required periodically.

The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has
established the program to implement the medical panel's
recommendations and the registration process, as well as
eligibility screening, is ongoing.  Diagnostic screening and
testing has begun and associated payments to service providers
are being disbursed from the escrow account; at March 31, 2017
less than US$1 million has been disbursed.

The Company said, "While it is probable that the company will
incur liabilities related to funding the medical monitoring
program, such liabilities cannot be reasonably estimated due to
uncertainties surrounding the level of participation by eligible
class members and the scope of testing.  In addition, under the
Leach Settlement Agreement, the company must continue to provide
water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to
six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water
Association (LHWA), and private well users."

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company operates as a science and
technology based company.  The Company markets its products
through the company's sales force and distributors in the United
States and internationally.  E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
was founded in 1802 and is headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.


EDWARD PRODUCE: Faces "Arias" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edward Produce
Corp.  The case is styled as Charles Arias, On Behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Edward Produce Corp.,
E.D. Produce Corp., Edward Doe and Pedro Doe, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02836 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2017).

Edward Produce Corp. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping
and trucking company running a freight hauling business from
Bronx, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ENERGY RECOVERY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Aug. 24
-------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Recovery, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the United States
District Court of the Northern District of California set a final
hearing date of August 24, 2017, to approve the settlement in the
case, In Re Energy Recovery Inc. Securities Litigation.

On January 20 and 27, 2015, two stockholder class action
complaints were filed against the Company in the United States
District Court of the Northern District of California, on behalf
of Energy Recovery stockholders under the captions, Joseph
Sabatino v. Energy Recovery, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00265
EMC, and Thomas C. Mowdy v. Energy Recovery, Inc, et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00374 EMC. The complaints have now been consolidated
under the caption, In Re Energy Recovery Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00265 EMC. The consolidated
complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based upon
alleged public misrepresentations and seeks the recovery of
unspecified monetary damages.

On October 12, 2016, the Company and the attorneys representing
the class reached an agreement in principle to settle all
outstanding claims in the case. As part of the settlement
agreement, the Company has agreed to pay the class an undisclosed
sum, the entirety of which will be borne by the Company's
insurer.

On April 11, 2017, the United States District Court of the
Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement and set a final hearing date of August
24, 2017.

Energy Recovery, Inc. is an energy solutions provider to
industrial fluid flow markets worldwide.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Date to Respond to Merger Suit Not Yet Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that defendants' dates
to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the merger
related lawsuits have not yet been set.

Between January 6, 2017 and February 8, 2017, seven purported ETP
common unitholders ("Plaintiffs") separately filed seven putative
unitholder class action lawsuits challenging the merger and the
disclosures made in connection with the merger. Since then, two
of the Plaintiffs have non-suited their claims. The lawsuits
remaining are styled (a) Shure v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00044-UNA, in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware (the "Shure Lawsuit"); (b)
Verlin v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17-
cv-00045-UNA, in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware (the "Verlin Lawsuit"); (c) Duany v. Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00058-UNA, in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(the "Duany Lawsuit"); (d) Epstein v. Energy Transfer Partners,
L.P. et. al., Case No, 1:17-cv-00069, in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Epstein
Lawsuit") and (e) Sgnilek v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00141, in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware (the "Sgnilek Lawsuit" and
collectively with the Shure Lawsuit, Verlin Lawsuit, Duany
Lawsuit, and Epstein Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits").

The Duany Lawsuit and Epstein Lawsuit are filed against ETP, ETP
GP, ETP GP, LLC, ETE, and the members of the ETP Board. The Shure
Lawsuit and Verlin Lawsuit are filed against ETP, ETP GP, the
members of the ETP Board, ETE, Sunoco Logistics, and Sunoco
Logistics GP. The Sgnilek Lawsuit is filed against ETP, ETP GP,
ETP GP, LLC, and ETE, the members of the ETP Board, Sunoco
Logistics and Sunoco Logistics GP (collectively "Defendants").

Plaintiffs allege causes of action challenging the merger and the
preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection
with the merger. According to Plaintiffs, the preliminary joint
proxy statement/prospectus is allegedly misleading because, among
other things, it fails to disclose certain information
concerning, in general, (a) the background and process that led
to the merger; (b) ETE's, ETP's, and Sunoco Logistics' financial
projections; (c) the financial analysis and fairness opinion
provided by Barclays; and (d) alleged conflicts of interest
concerning Barclays, ETE, and certain officers and directors of
ETP and ETE. Based on these allegations, and in general,
Plaintiffs allege that (i) Defendants have violated Section 14(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and
(ii) the members of the ETP Board have violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs in the Shure Lawsuit and Verlin Lawsuit also allege
that Sunoco Logistics has violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. Plaintiffs also assert, in general, that the terms of the
merger (including, among other terms, the merger consideration)
are unfair to ETP common unitholders and resulted from an unfair
and conflicted process.

Based on these allegations, the Sgnilek Lawsuit alleges that (a)
the ETP Board, ETP GP, ETP GP LLC, ETP, and ETE have breached the
covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties, and (b) Sunoco
Logistics and Sunoco Logistics GP have aided and abetted those
alleged breaches. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs seek to
enjoin Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the merger
unless and until Defendants disclose the allegedly omitted
information. The Sgnilek Lawsuit also seeks to enjoin Defendants
from proceeding with or consummating the merger unless and until
the ETP Board adopts and implements processes to obtain the best
possible terms for ETP common unitholders. To the extent that the
merger is consummated before injunctive relief is granted,
Plaintiffs seek to have the merger rescinded. Plaintiffs also
seek damages and reimbursement of attorneys' fees.

Defendants' dates to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise
respond to the Lawsuits have not yet been set. Defendants cannot
predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be
filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this quarterly
report, nor can Defendants predict the amount of time and expense
that will be required to resolve such litigation. Defendants
believe the Lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend
vigorously against the Lawsuits and any other actions challenging
the merger.


ENHANCED DRILLING: Faces "Guillotte" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB GUILLOTTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ENHANCED DRILLING, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01533 (S.D. Tex., May 18, 2017),
alleges that as a service technician, Plaintiff was paid a salary
and a day rate but no overtime compensation when he worked more
than 40 hours a week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ENHANCED DRILLING, INC. is an oilfield services company with
locations throughout the world.  EDI provides managed pressure
drilling services.  Plaintiff Jacob Guillotte worked offshore for
Defendant Enhanced Drilling, Inc. as a service technician
performing work on managed pressure drilling equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: 713-352-1100
     Fax: 713-352-3300
     E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com
             litkin@mybackwages.com
             jbresler@mybackwages.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Anderson" Suit Transferred to E.D. Va.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Scott C. Anderson, And all Other
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Information
Services L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-03959 was removed on
April 19, 2017 from the District of Minnesota, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia - (Richmond).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00303-MHL to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Wilhelmina
M. Wright.

Equifax Information collects and reports consumer information to
financial institutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Peter J Nickitas, Esq.
   431 S 7th Street, Suite 2446
   Minneapolis, MN 55415

The Defendant is represented by:

   Edwin H Caldie , III, Esq.
   Stinson Leonard Street LLP
   150 S 5th St Ste 2300
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 335-1404
   Fax: (612) 335-1657

        - and -

   Misty L. Peterson, Esq.
   King & Spaulding LLP
   1180 Peachtree Street
   Atlanta, GA 30309
   Tel: (404) 572-4939

        - and -

   Zachary A McEntyre, Esq.
   King & Spalding LLP
   1180 Peachtree Street NE
   Atlanta, GA 30309
   Tel: (404) 572-4500


ERJ DINING: "Grubb" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Grubb, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. ERJ Dining, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00316-DJH (W.D.
Ken., May 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages for
every hour worked, prejudgment interest, liquidated damages,
litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, and such other
and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ERJ Dining, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Richmond,
Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Horne, Esq.
      HORNE LAW OFFICE
      517 West Ormsby Avenue
      Louisville, KY 40203
      Telephone: (502) 637-1222

         - and -

      Jerry Martin, Esq.
      David Garrison, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN  37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
              dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com

         - and -

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Against "Dougherty" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
continues to defend against the case, Kevin L. Dougherty v.
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al.

On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company
and Tim Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion
Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). The lawsuit alleges
that the Company and Mr. Mayleben violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
by allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17, 2015, public
statement that the FDA would require a cardiovascular outcomes
trial before approving the Company's lead product candidate. The
lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in
connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August
18, 2015 and September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

On May 20, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit
and on July 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On December 27, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the Company's
favor.

On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a
motion to alter or amend the judgment.

The Company filed an opposition to that motion on March 1, 2017.
The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and
is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of
loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome.

The Company is the lipid management company, a late-stage
pharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing
convenient, complementary, cost-effective, once-daily, oral
therapies for the treatment of patients with elevated low density
lipoprotein cholesterol ("LDL-C").


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Unit Still Defends Jerry Beeman Case in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company's unit, Express Scripts, Inc.
(ESI), continues to face a legal proceeding filed by Jerry
Beeman, among other plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The plaintiffs in the case styled Jerry Beeman, et al. v.
Caremark, et al. allege that ESI and the other defendants failed
to comply with statutory obligations to provide California
clients with the results of a bi-annual survey of retail drug
prices.

On November 14, 2016, the district court denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, holding that the proposed class
representatives and counsel were inadequate to represent a class.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and
Europe.  It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business
Operations.  It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and
changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April
2012.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Saint Louis, Missouri.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: 2 Antitrust Class Suits vs. Unit Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company's unit continues to defend itself
in 2 potential class action proceedings over alleged Sherman
Antitrust Act violations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The cases are captioned Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Medco
Health Solutions, Inc., and North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al.
v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.  The court has entered an order denying class
certification in the Brady case and decertifying the class
against Express Scripts, Inc. (ESI) and Medco in the North
Jackson case.  The Brady plaintiffs have filed a motion
requesting reconsideration of the court's denial of class
certification.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and
Europe.  It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business
Operations.  It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and
changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April
2012.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Saint Louis, Missouri.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Still Defends Firefighters' Pension Fund Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company continues to defend itself in a
putative securities class action with the Melbourne Municipal
Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund as plaintiff, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

In the case Melbourne Municipal Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund
v. Express Scripts Holding Company, et al., the plaintiff filed
this putative securities class action complaint on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's publicly traded common stock between February 24, 2015
and March 21, 2016 and alleges the Company and named individuals
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 by carrying out a scheme to defraud the investing public.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff and
other class members, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable
relief.  In support of the claim, the plaintiff adopts many of
the allegations made by Anthem, Inc. in a separate proceeding.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and
Europe.  It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business
Operations.  It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and
changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April
2012.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Saint Louis, Missouri.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Consolidated Class Suit on ERISA Breach Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company's unit, Express Scripts, Inc.
(ESI), continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action
case regarding alleged violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), among other claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

The case captioned In re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation
consolidated the cases: John Doe One and John Doe Two v. Express
Scripts, Inc; and Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, and Robert
Shullich v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc.

The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on behalf of health plan beneficiaries who are enrolled
in health care plans that are insured or administered by Anthem,
Inc.  They allege that the Company and Anthem breached fiduciary
duties and otherwise violated their legal obligations under
ERISA, that ESI engaged in mail fraud, wire fraud and other
racketeering activity through its invoicing system with Anthem,
that ESI breached its contract with Anthem, that plaintiffs are
entitled to equitable relief under theories including unjust
enrichment, that ESI violated unfair and deceptive trade
practices statutes, that Anthem breached the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing implied in health plans, and that ESI
violated the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable
Care Act.

In support of the claim, the plaintiff adopts many of the
allegations made by Anthem, Inc. in a separate proceeding.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, declaratory relief,
equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and
Europe.  It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business
Operations.  It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and
changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April
2012.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Saint Louis, Missouri.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Analog Insulin Products Class Action Continues
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action case filed against Express Scripts Holding
Company's unit, among other defendants, related to analog insulin
products is still ongoing, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

The case is captioned Frank Barnett, et al. v. Novo Nordisk,
Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Express
Scripts Holding Company, Express Scripts, Inc., CVS Health Corp.,
and UnitedHealth Group, Inc., OptumRx, Inc.

Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the defendants entered into
"exclusionary" agreements that granted exclusive formulary
placement for certain analog insulin products in return for
higher rebate payments.  The complaint alleges that these
agreements had the effect of driving up analog insulin costs for
the putative class members and violated Sections 1 and 3 of the
Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) and the competition and consumer protection laws of
various states, U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia.
Plaintiffs seek treble damages, equitable relief and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Express Scripts Holding Company operates as a pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) company in the United States, Canada, and
Europe.  It operates in two segments, PBM and Other Business
Operations.  It was formerly known as Aristotle Holding, Inc. and
changed its name to Express Scripts Holding Company in April
2012.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Saint Louis, Missouri.


FACEBOOK INC: Trial in Class Suit to Begin Oct. 23
--------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that trial is scheduled
to begin on October 23, 2017, in the class action lawsuit related
to the Company's initial public offering.

The Company said, "Beginning on May 22, 2012, multiple putative
class actions, derivative actions, and individual actions were
filed in state and federal courts in the United States and in
other jurisdictions against us, our directors, and/or certain of
our officers alleging violation of securities laws or breach of
fiduciary duties in connection with our initial public offering
(IPO) and seeking unspecified damages."

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we intend to
continue to vigorously defend them.

"The vast majority of the cases in the United States, along with
multiple cases filed against The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The
Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (collectively referred to herein as
NASDAQ) alleging technical and other trading-related errors by
NASDAQ in connection with our IPO, were ordered centralized for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

"In a series of rulings in 2013 and 2014, the court denied our
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action and
granted our motions to dismiss the derivative actions against our
directors and certain of our officers.

"On July 24, 2015, the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of
the derivative actions.

"On December 11, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the consolidated securities action. On
April 14, 2017, we filed a motion for summary judgment. Trial is
scheduled to begin on October 23, 2017."


FACEBOOK INC: Trial in Stock Reclassification Case to Begin Sept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that trial is scheduled
to begin September 26, 2017, in the case, In re Facebook, Inc. Class
C Reclassification Litig., C.A. No. 12286-VCL.

The Company said, "On April 27, 2016, we announced a proposal to
create a new class of non-voting capital stock (Class C capital
stock) and our intention to declare and pay a dividend of two
shares of Class C capital stock for each outstanding share of
Class A and Class B common stock (the Reclassification).
Following our announcement of the Reclassification, beginning on
April 29, 2016, multiple purported class action lawsuits were
filed on behalf of our stockholders in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against us, certain of our board of directors, and Mark
Zuckerberg."

"The lawsuits have been consolidated under the caption In re
Facebook, Inc. Class C Reclassification Litig., C.A. No. 12286-
VCL, and the consolidated complaint generally alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Reclassification. Among other remedies, these lawsuits seek to
enjoin the Reclassification as well as unspecified money damages,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

"Trial is scheduled to begin on September 26, 2017. We believe
that the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against all claims asserted."


FARMLAND MUTUAL: California Court Trims ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case SCARLETTE MEJIA, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FARMLAND MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa corporation; FARMLAND MUTUAL INSURANCE
CO, an unincorporated association; NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00570-TLN-KLN (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California (i) dismissed the Plaintiff's
First, Second, and Third Causes of Action are dismissed, without
prejudice, and with each side to bear their own fees and costs as
to those claims; (ii) granted the Plaintiff's request for leave
to file her First Amended Complaint; (iii) ordered that the
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is deemed filed and served on
the Defendants, on the date of the Order; and (iv) ordered that
the Defendants will have 30 days from the date of entry of the
Order by the Court to file a responsive pleading.

The Plaintiff initiated the action by filing a wage and hour
putative class action Complaint in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Sacramento on Feb. 3, 2017, against
Defendants.

The Plaintiff has submitted a notice to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency ("LWDA") alleging claims under the Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") on Feb. 3, 2017 for failure to
provide accurate wage statements.

The Defendants filed a notice of removal and removed this action
to the Court on March 16, 2017.

The Plaintiff contends the LWDA has not responded regarding their
intent to investigate the noticed claims and, therefore, the
Plaintiff contends that she is statutorily authorized to act as a
Private Attorneys General on the noticed claims as of April 9,
2017.

The Parties have engaged in informal discovery regarding the
applicability of ERISA to the Plaintiff's First, Second, and
Third Causes of Action and the Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss
those claims, without prejudice, and with each side to bear their
own fees and costs as to those claims.

Neither the Plaintiff nor her counsel is receiving any type or
form of compensation for the dismissal of the claims without
prejudice.

The Defendants have agreed to permit Plaintiff to file a First
Amended Complaint.  They deny the allegations in the proposed
First Amended Complaint and are not making any admission of any
kind whatsoever in agreeing to this stipulation.

A full-text copy of the May 30, 2017 stipulation and order is
available at https://is.gd/fOqU54 from Leagle.com

Scarlette Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by Galen T. Shimoda,
Shimoda Law Corp..

Scarlette Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Paul Rodriguez,
Shimoda Law Corp.

Farmland Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Barbara Allyn Blackburn, Littler Mendelson & Britney Noelle
Torres, Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Barbara Allyn Blackburn, Littler Mendelson & Britney Noelle
Torres, Littler Mendelson, P.C..


FCA US: Can Recover Costs Over Protective Order Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE and KELLY BROWN, and
MICHAEL KEITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, f/k/a Chrysler Group LLC and
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-
cv-855-MJR-DGW (S.D. Ill.), Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois granted in part the Defendant's Motion for Emergency
Relief and denied its Supplemental Motion for Sanctions for
Additional Violations.

This is a proposed class action in which Plaintiffs assert that
various models of Defendant FCA US LLC's cars and trucks suffer
from design defects that allow hackers to gain access to
Defendant Harman International Industries, Inc.'s "uConnect
infotainment system."  Such vulnerability, the Plaintiffs allege,
allows hackers to gain access to, and take control of, vehicles'
powertrain and safety related functions.

On motion of the parties, the Court entered an Amended Protective
Order on Jan. 9, 2017.  Said protective order provides that "no
documents, information, or things designated as 'Confidential' or
'Attorneys' Eyes Only' shall be filed with the Court, including
that contained in pleadings, motions, briefs, declarations, or
exhibits, except under seal."  The Order also directs that
"provided that no 'Confidential' information is disclosed, the
parties may generally refer to documents designated as
'Confidential' in pleadings, motions, briefs, affidavits, or
exhibits filed with the Court, without the need to file such
pleadings, motions, briefs, affidavits, or exhibits under seal."

In FCA US' motion for emergency relief now before the Court, it
asserts the Plaintiffs violated provisions of the Amended
Protective Order and revealed information culled from documents
designated as "Confidential" in their public filing of a
miscellaneous action to enforce a third-party subpoena filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on April 24, 2017.

FCA US asks the Court for various relief due to the Plaintiffs'
alleged violation, including: (i) order the Plaintiffs and their
Counsel to withdraw their motion to compel non-party Cisco
System, Inc.'s compliance with subpoena duces tecum and
memorandum in support in the miscellaneous action; (ii) order the
Plaintiffs to close the miscellaneous action and take any and all
other actions necessary to remove FCA US' confidential
information from the record; (iii) close document discovery; (iv)
order the payment of attorney's fees and costs incurred by FCA US
in connection with the Plaintiffs' filing of confidential
information in the public record in the miscellaneous action; and
(v) grant FCA US all other appropriate relief.

In response to FCA US' motion, the Plaintiffs assert that the
information deemed "Confidential" by FCA US in its motion is not
in fact confidential as it merely references background
information that is publicly available.  The Plaintiffs also
remark that they did not attach any confidential documents to
their motion or memorandum in the miscellaneous action, but only
referred to generic information from FCA US documents that was
not confidential.  In support of their argument, the Plaintiffs
attached (and cited portions of) the deposition testimony of
Laith Shina, a Chrysler witness.  The Plaintiffs also indicated
that despite their belief that they in no way violated the
Amended Protective Order, by the evening of April 27, 2017, the
motion and memorandum in the miscellaneous action were filed
under seal.

Soon after the Plaintiffs' filed their response to FCA US'
motion, FCA US filed a combined supplement to its motion and a
motion for sanctions for additional violations.  In its
supplemental motion, FCA US asserts that the Plaintiffs' filing
of excerpts from Shina's deposition was yet another violation of
the Protective Order as the time for FCA US to designate the
deposition testimony as "Confidential" had not yet passed.

The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to respond to FCA US'
supplemental motion and said reply was filed on May 4, 2017.  In
their reply, the Plaintiffs assert that the Protective Order
provides a process for notifying the parties that a deposition
contains confidential material in order to invoke the 20-day
timeframe and FCA US failed to comply with this process.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert they had no indication that
FCA US was going to designate any portion of Shina's deposition
testimony as confidential prior to their filing.

The Court held a motion hearing in this matter on May 5, 2017.
At the hearing, the Court conducted a thorough review of the
information contained in the Plaintiffs' miscellaneous filing in
the Northern District of California and heard argument from both
the Plaintiffs and FCA US regarding the documents.  Generally,
the Plaintiffs maintained that the information contained in its
filings were in the public domain and urged the Court to conduct
its own internet search for said information.  FCA US pointed to
confidential documents that contained the cited information and
urged the Court to award costs associated with its enforcement of
the Protective Order and asked the Court to cease discovery with
respect to the production of additional documents.

The Court is not convinced that the Plaintiffs' reference to and
attachment of portions of Laith Shina's deposition testimony was
violative of the terms of the Protective Order.  Finding that the
Plaintiffs violated the Protective Order by disclosing
confidential information contained in documents designated as
such in its filing of a motion to compel in a miscellaneous
action, the Court must determine whether sanctions are
appropriate.

Noting that any confidential material has been sealed and is no
longer in the public record, the Court finds that closing
document discovery and ordering counsel to withdraw their motion
to compel in their miscellaneous action too harsh a sanction.  An
appropriate sanction is to allow FCA US to recover its costs and
attorneys' fees related to addressing and remedying the
Plaintiffs' actions that were violative of the Protective Order.
This includes the reasonable expenses FCA US incurred
investigating the Plaintiffs' violation of the Protective Order
and filing its motion for emergency relief; however, expenses
related to the filing of the supplementary motion should not be
included.  Counsel for FCA US is directed to file a bill of
costs, with support thereof, within seven days of the date of the
Order.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 30, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/m950Sz from Leagle.com.

ALI JUDAH, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH K. JONES, Jones, Wolf
& Kapasi, LLC.

ALI JUDAH, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF, Jones,
Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.

TOTAL CARD, INC., Defendant, represented by CONCEPCION A.
MONTOYA, HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP.


FIREEYE INC: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company awaits
approval of the settlement of a stockholder class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On June 20, 2014, a purported stockholder
class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara, against the Company, current
and former members of our Board of Directors, current and former
officers, and the underwriters of our March 2014 follow-on public
offering."

"On July 17, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in
the same court against the same defendants. The actions were
consolidated and, on March 4, 2015, an amended complaint was
filed, alleging violations of the federal securities laws on
behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the
Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus for the follow-on public offering, and
seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

"On April 20, 2015, defendants filed demurrers seeking that the
amended complaint be dismissed. On August 11, 2015, the court
overruled defendants' demurrers. On November 16, 2015, plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking certification of the putative class, which
the court granted in part and denied in part on July 11, 2016.

"On January 6, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking that the
action be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
which the court denied on April 1, 2016.

"On May 19, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a petition for a writ of mandate seeking the overturning of the
court's denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

"On September 8, 2016, the court of appeal denied the petition.
On September 16, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of California.

"On November 9, 2016, the Supreme Court of California denied the
petition for review.

"On December 8, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before the United
States Supreme Court.

"On February 6, 2017, the parties submitted to the Superior Court
a stipulation of settlement. The terms of the settlement include
a release and dismissal of all claims against all defendants
without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them.

"On February 7, 2017, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement, which the Superior Court
granted. The settlement, which is immaterial to the Company's
consolidated financial statements, is subject to stockholder
notice, court approval, and other customary conditions."

FireEye, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a leader in
stopping advanced cyber attacks that use advanced malware, zero-
day exploits, and APT ("Advanced Persistent Threat") tactics.


FOMENTO ECONOMICO: Sao Paolo Solid Waste Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fomento Economico Mexicano, S.A.B. de C.V.'s units are facing
class action proceedings filed by the public prosecutor's office
of the state of Sao Paulo regarding solid waste policy, according
to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In August 2010, Law No. 12.305/2010 established the Brazilian
National Solid Waste Policy.  This policy is based on the
principle of shared responsibility between the government,
companies and the public, and provides for the post-consumption
return of products to companies and requires public authorities
to implement waste management programs.  This law is regulated by
Federal Decree No.  7.404/2010, and was published in December
2010.

In response to the Brazilian National Solid Waste Policy, in
December 2012, a proposal of agreement was provided to the
Ministry of the Environment by almost 30 associations involved in
the packaging sector, including the Brazilian Soft Drink and Non-
Alcoholic Beverage Association (ABIR) in its capacity as
representative for The Coca-Cola Company, Coca-Cola FEMSA's
Brazilian subsidiary and other bottlers.  This agreement proposed
the creation of a "coalition" to implement systems for reverse
logistics packaging non-dangerous waste that make up the dry
fraction of municipal solid waste or equivalent.

The goal of the proposal is to create methodologies for
sustainable development, and improve the management of solid
waste by increasing recycling rates and decreasing incorrect
disposal in order to protect the environment, society and the
economy.  The Ministry of Environment approved and signed this
agreement in November 2015.

In August 2016, the public prosecutor's office of the state of
Sao Paulo filed a class action against the parties that signed
this agreement, challenging the validity of certain terms of the
agreement and the effectiveness of the mandatory measures to be
taken by the companies of the packaging sector, as provided in
the agreement.  ABIR is leading the lawsuit's defense.

Fomento Economico Mexicano, S.A.B. de C.V., through its
subsidiaries, operates as a bottler of Coca-Cola trademark
beverages and a chain of small-format stores.  The Company was
founded in 1890 and is headquartered in Monterrey, Mexico.


FUN BUFFET: "Han" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gen Wang Han ("Han"), on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Fun Buffet Inc., d/b/a "Fun Buffet",
Yan Xia Zou, Yu Lin, "John" Chen (first name unknown), "John" Shi
(first name unknown), and "Jane" Chen (first name unknown), a/k/a
Sister Chen, Case No. 5:17-cv-01092 (N.D. Ohio, May 24, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 9421 State
Route 14, Streetsboro, OH 44241. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
      Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
      COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
      The Hoyt Block Building
      Suite 400 700 West St. Clair Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 781-7956
      Facsimile: (216) 781-8061
      E-mail: jbristol@crklaw.com
              jfuchs@crklaw.com

         - and -

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


GATESTONE & CO: Class Certification Sought in "Ballaj" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled VALBONA BALLAJ, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated v. GATESTONE & CO.
INTERNATIONAL INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01311-WHW-CLW (D.N.J.), notifies the Court that on June 19, 2017,
at 10:00 a.m., she will ask for an order certifying the case to
proceed as a class action.

A copy of the Notice and Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GIJvbyx6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com

               - and -

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


GLOBUS MEDICAL: Appeal in Silverstein Litigation Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Globus Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that an appeal in the
Silverstein litigation remains pending.

The Company said, "On September 28, 2015, a putative securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff in the lawsuit purported to represent a
class of our stockholders who purchased shares between February
26, 2014 and August 5, 2014. The complaint purported to assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and sought damages in an unspecified
amount, attorney's fees and other relief. This matter was
dismissed with prejudice on August 26, 2016."

"On September 9, 2016, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was
denied, and on September 13, 2016 plaintiff filed an appeal in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit."

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

Globus Medical, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a
medical device company focused on the design, development and
commercialization of musculoskeletal implants.


GC SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Martin" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara J. Martin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 2:17-cv-
14182-KAM (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

GC Services Limited Partnership is a Delaware Limited Partnership
engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts, which
operates from offices located at 6330 Gulfton, Houson, Texas
77081. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 32963
      Telephone: (772) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
      E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


HELIX ENERGY: Securities Case Plaintiff Didn't Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017 that the plaintiff in a
class action case on alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act has not filed an amended complaint by the March 17,
2017 deadline.

On July 31, 2015, a purported stockholder, Parviz Izadjoo, filed
the class action lawsuit styled Parviz Izadjoo v. Owen Kratz and
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. against the Company and Mr.
Kratz, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of shares
of the Company's common stock between October 21, 2014, and July
21, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit asserted violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and SEC Rule 10b-5 as to both the Company and Mr.  Kratz, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Kratz, based on
alleged misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other
public disclosures regarding projections for 2015 dry docks of
two of the Company's vessels working in the Gulf of Mexico that
allegedly caused the price at which putative class members bought
stock during the proposed class period to be artificially
inflated.

On January 28, 2016, the judge in the case approved a motion for
the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On March 14, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint, adding Mr. Tripodo (the Company's Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer) and Mr. Chamblee (the
Company's former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer) as individual defendants, alleging the same types of
claims made in the original complaint (alleged violations during
the Class Period of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 with respect to all defendants, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against the individual defendants), but
asserting that the alleged misrepresentations and omissions in
SEC filings and other public disclosures are related to the
condition of and repairs to certain equipment aboard the Q4000
vessel.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 28, 2016, and
on February 14, 2017, the defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint was granted.  The dismissal was without prejudice, with
leave for plaintiff to amend the complaint by no later than March
17, 2017.  The plaintiff did not amend the complaint by that
deadline.

Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides specialty services to the offshore energy
industry primarily in the Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, the Asia
Pacific, and West Africa regions.  It operates through three
segments: Well Intervention, Robotics, and Production Facilities.
The Company was formerly known as Cal Dive International, Inc.
and changed its name to Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. in
March 2006.  Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. was incorporated
in 1979 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


HONDA NORTH: Faces "Merkin" Suit Over Defective Starter System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Merkin, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Honda North America, Inc., American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc., and Honda Motor Company, Ltd., Case No. 3:17-cv-03625-PGS-
DEA (D.N.J., May 24, 2017), is brought on behalf of a class of
current and former Honda vehicle owners and lessees with
defective engine starting systems in model years ("MY") 2013-15
Honda Accord and 2013 Honda Crosstour vehicles.

The action arises from the Defendants' failure, despite their
longstanding knowledge of this material and manufacturing defect,
to disclose to the Plaintiff and other consumers that the Class
Vehicles are predisposed to a starter system defect.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing,
distribution, and servicing corporations doing business within
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
      MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
      555 Lancaster Avenue
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (610) 200-0581
      E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com
              mds@mccunewright.com
              jbk@mccuneright.com


HONEST & QUALITY: "Park" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Young Kwan Park, and Young Rok Lee, individually and on behalf of
all other employees similarly situated v. Honest & Quality, Corp.
and Kinam Han, Case No. 707051/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 23,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at
70-62 Kissena Boulevard, #3F, Flushing, NY 11367. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip H. Kim, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave. Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


HOUSTON, TX: Kohr Seeks to Certify Homeless Class
-------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled TAMMY KOHR and EUGENE
STROMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and ROBERT COLTON v. CITY OF HOUSTON, Case No. 4:17-cv-
01473 (S.D. Tex.), seek certification of this class:

     All people in Houston who lack a fixed, regular, and
     adequate nighttime residence, to whom the City has directed
     a written threat to enforce Houston Code of Ordinances
     Sections 21-61 to -62.

Tammy Kohr, Eugene Stroman and Robert Colton are homeless
Houstonians challenging the constitutionality of Houston's new
ordinances criminalizing homelessness.  The Plaintiffs also move
for appointment of their counsel to represent the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6sSzQTVc

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Trisha Trigilio, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF TEXAS
          1500 McGowen Street, Suite 250
          Houston, TX 77004
          Telephone: (713) 942-8146
          Facsimile: (713) 942-8966
          E-mail: ttrigilio@aclutx.org

               - and -

          Kali Cohn, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF TEXAS
          6440 N. Central Expressway
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 346-6577
          Facsimile: (713) 942-8966
          E-mail: kcohn@aclutx.org


IBM CORP: Retirement Plans Committee Still Defends ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation's Retirement Plans
Committee continues to face a putative class action in New York
over alleged violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2017.

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

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

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

International Business Machines Corporation provides information
technology (IT) products and services worldwide.  The Company was
formerly known as Computing-Tabulating-Recording Co. and changed
its name to International Business Machines Corporation in 1924.
The Company was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Armonk,
New York.


ICU MEDICAL: Hospira Units Face Class Suit on IV Saline Solution
----------------------------------------------------------------
An attachment to ICU Medical, Inc.'s Form 8-K/A filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2017,
disclosed that Hospira, Inc. and Hospira Worldwide, Inc. are
defendants in a purported class action in Illinois regarding
intravenous saline solution.

On February 3, 2017, the Company completed its acquisition of
Hospira Infusion Systems, Pfizer, Inc.'s global infusion therapy
business, for US$275 million in cash, 3.2 million shares of ICU
stock and a potential US$225 million Earnout.

Previously, in November 2016, a purported class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Hospira, Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and certain other
defendants relating to intravenous saline solution.  The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons
and entities in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous
saline solution sold by any of the defendants from January 1,
2013 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct
ceases. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants' conduct
restricts output and artificially fixes, raises, maintains and/or
stabilizes the prices of intravenous saline solution sold
throughout the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws. The
plaintiff seeks treble damages (for itself and on behalf of the
putative class) and an injunction against defendants for alleged
price overcharges for intravenous saline solution in the U.S.
since January 1, 2013.

ICU Medical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells medical
devices used in infusion therapy, critical care, and oncology
applications worldwide.  It offers infusion therapy products
comprising a tube running from a bottle or plastic bag containing
a solution to a catheter inserted in a patient's vein for use in
hospitals and ambulatory clinics.  The Company sells its products
to medical product manufacturers, distributors, and end-users.
ICU Medical, Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in San
Clemente, California.


INDIANA, USA: Hines Moves to Certify Class of Disabled Prisoners
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hines, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned JAMES
HINES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROBERT CARTER JR., in his official capacity, Case No.
3:17-cv-00388-PPS-MGG (Ind. Super. Ct., Laporte Cty.), asks the
Court to certify this class:

     All prisoners currently incarcerated at Westville
     Correctional Facility who are indigent, who are represented
     by a private attorney, who suffer from a mental and/or
     physical disability, and who seek accommodation for their
     disability through the receipt of at least one telephone
     call from their private attorney.

Robert Carter, Jr., is the Commissioner of the Indiana Department
of Correction.

Mr. Hines contends that as the proposed class representative, he
has satisfied necessary prerequisites as the Defendant has acted
or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class
through the Defendant's alleged discriminatory denial access to
attorney-client telephone communication in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Plaintiff James Hines is represented by:

          David W. Frank, Esq.
          Christopher C. Myers, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307
          Telephone: (260) 424-0600
          Facsimile: (260) 424-0712
          E-mail: dfrank@myers-law.com

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


INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiff's Time to Appeal Expired
-------------------------------------------------------
InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the time
period for class action plaintiff to appeal the United States
Supreme Court has expired.

On July 31, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, naming the Company and Mr. Reynolds as defendants
(the "Securities Class Action"). The lawsuit alleges violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements related to the timing
and completion of the clinical study of the Company's Neuro-
Spinal Scaffold(TM) implant. The plaintiff sought class
certification for purchasers of the Company's common stock during
the period from April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013 and
unspecified damages.

On April 3, 2015, the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiff's claim with
prejudice.

On May 4, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this
decision. Following the submission of briefs by the parties, the
Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on April 6, 2016. On
January 9, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
issued an order and opinion affirming the dismissal of the
Securities Class Action with prejudice. The time period for
plaintiff to appeal the United States Supreme Court expired on
April 10, 2017.

The Company is a research and clinical-stage biomaterials and
biotechnology company with a focus on the treatment of spinal
cord injuries. Its proprietary technologies incorporate
intellectual property licensed under the Company's exclusive,
worldwide license from Boston Children's Hospital and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as intellectual
property that has been developed internally in collaboration with
its advisors and partners.


J SALERNO & SON: Gonzalez's Bid to Certify Class Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
the collective action titled SANTIAGO GONZALEZ, individually and
on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. J. SALERNO &
SON, INC., d/b/a SALERNO'S; JOSEPH SALERNO; MARIA SALERNO; PETER
LIA; and VICTORIA LIA, Case No. 1:16-cv-05120 (N.D. Ill.), and
for authorization to issue notice to the putative class members.

Mr. Gonzalez worked as a cook from 1993 until January 30, 2016,
at a restaurant allegedly owned and operated by the Defendants.
He brought the lawsuit over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

In his Motion, Mr. Gonzalez asks the Court to conditionally
certify a collective action composed of "all employees, past or
present, who's (sic) payroll records show that they worked
thirty-seven (37) hours in any one (1) week during the three (3)
years prior to the filing of this lawsuit" and "anyone who was a
cook during the three (3) years prior to the filing of this
lawsuit."

Mr. Gonzalez has also asked that notice be issued by sending the
three forms he attached to the Motion.  The Court, however, has
identified various errors and orders the Plaintiff to address
certain issues.

Judge Gilbert directs the Plaintiff to file proposed notice,
consent, and contact information forms that address the issues
identified by the Court on or before June 2, 2017.  If the
Defendants have any issues with the Plaintiff's revised forms,
Judge Gilbert orders that they can file an objection by
June 12, 2017.

The Plaintiff is not authorized to issue notice to putative
members of the collective action until all the issues discussed
in the Memorandum Opinion and Order have been addressed.

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


JIAO CONSULTING: "Arrazola" Suit Alleges Non-Payment of Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS A. ARRAZOLA, JOSUE TEJADA, FRANCISCO DAVILA, and other
similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. JIAO CONSULTING &
MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a NOW & ZEN, JEAN-ALEXANDRE P MAUFROY, And
BENOIT R NANQUETTE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
21848-JLK (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2017), alleges that Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiffs minimum wages and overtime according to
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Allegedly, there were some weeks in which Plaintiffs worked
overtime hours that were not paid at any rate. Also, Plaintiffs
had been working four weeks without receiving their regular
wages.

Defendant JIAU CONSULTING operates Now & Zen, an upscale Asian
restaurant.  Plaintiffs MARCOS A. ARRAZOLA, and JOSUE TEJADA,
were hired as bussers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma., Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd.
     Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Fax: (305) 446-1502
     E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


JIVE SOFTWARE: "Chun" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Wave Merger
------------------------------------------------------
JIN CHUN, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. JIVE SOFTWARE, INC., TONY ZINGALE, ELISA STEELE,
MARGARET BREYA, STEVE DARCY, ROBERT FRANKFURT, PHIL KOEN, TOM
REILLY, CHUCK ROBEL, GABRIELLE TOLEDANO, BALAJI YELAMANCHILI,
WAVE SYSTEMS CORP., and JAZZ MERGERSUB, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 5:17-cv-02855 (N.D. Cal., May 18, 2017), seeks to enjoin a
Tender Offer currently scheduled to expire on June 9, 2017, in
which Wave Systems Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of ESW
Capital, LLC (together with its subsidiaries and affiliates,
(ESW)), and Wave's wholly owned subsidiary, Jazz Mergersub, Inc.
will acquire each outstanding share of Jive common stock for
$5.25 per share in cash, with a total valuation of approximately
$462 million.

Defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders by agreeing to the Proposed Acquisition
which undervalues Jive and is the result of a flawed sales
process. Post-closure, Jive stockholders will be frozen out of
seeing the return on their investment of any and all future
profitability of Jive.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone: (877) 534-2590
     Fax: (610) 667-9029
     E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


KCG HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Proposed Sale to Virtu Financial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melvyn Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KCG Holdings, Inc., Charles Haldeman, Debra Chrapaty,
Daniel Coleman, Peter R. Fisher, Rene M. Kern, James T. Milde,
John C. Morris, Alastair Rampell, Daniel F. Schmitt, Laurie M.
Shahon, Colin Smith, Heather E. Tookes, Adrian Weller, Virtu
Financial, Inc., and Orchestra Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 1:17-
cv-03946 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2017), is brought on behalf of all
persons and entities that own KCG common stock, to enjoin the
proposed transaction announced on April 20, 2017, pursuant to
which KCG Holdings, Inc. will be acquired by Virtu Financial,
Inc. and Orchestra Merger Sub, Inc. for $20.00 per share in cash.

According to the complaint, KCG Holdings filed a Preliminary
Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, which recommends that KCG stockholders vote
in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the Proxy omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) the estimates of unlevered free cash flow for the
Company for the last nine months of 2017 and for the years 2018
through 2021, and the corresponding definition and constituent
line items; (ii) the range of illustrative terminal values for
the Company; (iii) the terminal year estimate of the free cash
flow to be generated by the Company; (iv) the amount of the
Company's estimated net debt as of March 31, 2017 as provided by
Company management; (v) the number of fully diluted outstanding
shares of the Company as provided by Company management; (vi)
Goldman's basis for applying perpetuity growth rates ranging from
(2.0)% to 2.0%; and (vii) the inputs underlying the discount
rates ranging from 9.0% to 11.0%.

The failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as stockholders need
such information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, says the complaint.  It
adds that the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest KCG's
public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets without
fully disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed
Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy defendants'
Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until
such problems are remedied.

KCG Holdings, Inc. offers services designed to address trading
needs across asset classes, product types, and time zones. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
      GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 983-1300
      Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
      E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
              gegleston@gme-law.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Objects to Punitive Damages in Halyard Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly-Clark Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2017 that it intends to challenge a jury's
verdict in a class action case involving its former healthcare
business, Halyard Health, Inc.

The Company is a party to certain legal proceedings relating to
Halyard, which the Company spun-off on October 31, 2014.  This
includes Bahamas Surgery Center v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et
al., a California consumer class action relating to the sale of
surgical gowns.

On April 7, 2017, the jury awarded the plaintiff class US$3.9
million in compensatory damages and US$350 million in punitive
damages against Kimberly-Clark.

The Company said, "We intend to challenge the jury's verdict as
we believe it is contrary to the evidence presented at trial and
that the punitive damage award is baseless, excessive and not
consistent with California and federal laws.

"Under the terms of the distribution agreement we entered into
with Halyard in connection with the spin-off, Halyard is
obligated to indemnify Kimberly-Clark for legal proceedings,
claims and other liabilities primarily related to our former
healthcare business.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and markets personal care, consumer tissue, and
professional products worldwide.  Kimberly-Clark Corporation was
founded in 1872 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


KINDER MORGAN: Court Denies Calif. Landowners' Class Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2017, that
the federal district court in Arizona denied the request for
class certification filed by a group of private landowners in
California in connection with Union Pacific Railroad Company
easement matters.

Company subsidiary SFPP, L.P. and Union Pacific Railroad Company
(UPRR) are engaged in a proceeding to determine the extent, if
any, to which the rent payable by SFPP for the use of pipeline
easements on rights-of-way held by UPRR should be adjusted
pursuant to existing contractual arrangements for the ten-year
period beginning January 1, 2004 (Union Pacific Railroad Company
v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., SFPP, L.P., Kinder Morgan
Operating L.P. "D", Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., et al., Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles,
filed July 28, 2004).  In September 2011, the trial judge
determined that the annual rent payable as of January 1, 2004 was
US$14 million, subject to annual consumer price index increases.
SFPP appealed the judgment.

By notice dated October 25, 2013, UPRR demanded the payment of
US$22.3 million in rent for the first year of the next ten-year
period beginning January 1, 2014, which SFPP rejected.

On November 5, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion which
reversed the judgment, including the award of prejudgment
interest, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a
determination of UPRR's property interest in its right-of-way,
including whether UPRR has sufficient interest to grant SFPP's
easements.  UPRR filed a petition for review to the California
Supreme Court which was denied.  The trial court is expected to
retry the 2004 rental dispute in April, 2018.  Until the 2004
rental dispute is resolved, the parties have stayed the
proceeding to establish rent for the rental term beginning in
2014.

After the decision by the California Court of Appeals which held
that UPRR does not own the subsurface rights to grant certain
easements and may not be able to collect rent from those
easements, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in 2015 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
by private landowners in California who claim to be the lawful
owners of subsurface real property allegedly used or occupied by
UPRR or SFPP.  Substantially similar follow-on lawsuits were
filed and are pending in federal courts by landowners in Nevada,
Arizona and New Mexico.  These suits, which are brought
purportedly as class actions on behalf of all landowners who own
land in fee adjacent to and underlying the railroad easement
under which the SFPP pipeline is located in those respective
states, assert claims against UPRR, SFPP, KMGP, and Kinder Morgan
Operating L.P. "D" for declaratory judgment, trespass, ejectment,
quiet title, unjust enrichment, accounting, and alleged unlawful
business acts and practices arising from defendants' alleged
improper use or occupation of subsurface real property.

On April 19, 2017, the federal district court in Arizona denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  SFPP views these
cases as primarily a dispute between UPRR and the plaintiffs.
UPRR purported to grant SFPP a network of subsurface pipeline
easements along UPRR's railroad right-of-way.  SFPP relied on the
validity of those easements and paid rent to UPRR for the value
of those easements.

The Company said, "We believe we have recorded a right-of-way
liability sufficient to cover our potential obligation, if any,
for back rent."

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company
in North America.  It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines,
CO2, Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada
segments.  The Company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco
LLC and changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011.
Kinder Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


KINDER MORGAN: Wisconsin Price Reporting Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. is awaiting the court's action on an appeal
to a dismissed request for class certification in a price
reporting litigation pending in Wisconsin, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed by purchasers of
natural gas against El Paso Corporation, El Paso Marketing L.P.
and numerous other energy companies based on a claim under state
antitrust law that such defendants conspired to manipulate the
price of natural gas by providing false price information to
industry trade publications that published gas indices.  Several
of the cases have been settled or dismissed.

The remaining cases, which are pending in Nevada federal district
court, were dismissed, but the dismissal was reversed by the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals.  The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision dated April 21, 2015,
and the cases were then remanded to the Nevada federal district
court for further consideration and trial, if necessary, of
numerous remaining issues.

On May 24, 2016, the district court granted a motion for summary
judgment dismissing a lawsuit brought by an industrial consumer
in Kansas in which approximately US$500 million in damages has
been alleged.  That ruling has been appealed to the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals.  Tentative settlements have been reached in
class actions originally filed in Kansas and Missouri, which
settlements are subject to court approval.

In the remaining case, a Wisconsin class action in which
approximately US$300 million in damages has been alleged against
all defendants, the district court denied plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  Plaintiff has petitioned the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals for an interlocutory review of this ruling.

The Company said, " There remains significant uncertainty
regarding the validity of the causes of action, the damages
asserted and the level of damages, if any, which may be allocated
to us in the remaining lawsuits and therefore, our legal
exposure, if any, and costs are not currently determinable."

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company
in North America.  It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines,
CO2, Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada
segments.  The Company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco
LLC and changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011.
Kinder Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


LINEBARGER GOGGAN: "Hoy" Suit Moved to S. Dist. of Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Edmund Hoy an individual person,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. John Clinnin, an individual person, Timothy O'Reilly, an
individual person, Richard Haas, an individual person, Nicole
Holmes, an individual person, Scott McGlasson, an individual
person, Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, a foreign limited
liability law partnership, Defendants, Case No. 37-2017-0007840-
CU-BT-NC, was removed on April 19, 2017, from the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00788-BTM-KSC to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz
and Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford.

Linebarger Goggan is a government debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   William McGrane, Esq.
   McGrane PC
   Four Embarcadero Center
   14th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 292-4807

The Defendants are represented by:

   Stephen Heald Turner
   Lewis BrisboisBisgaard& Smith LLP
   633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
   Los Angeles, CA 90071
   Tel: (213) 250-1800
   Fax: (213) 250-7900
   Email: stephen.turner@lewisbrisbois.com


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Fact Discovery to be Completed by November 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidity Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that fact discovery is to
be completed by November 30, 2017, in the case, Howard v.
Liquidity Services, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 14-1183 (D. D. C.
2014).

On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia (the "District Court") against the Company and its
chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and chief
accounting officer, on behalf of stockholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between February 1, 2012, and May 7, 2014.
The complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other
things, misrepresenting the Company's growth initiative, growth
potential, and financial and operating conditions, thereby
artificially inflating its stock price, and sought unspecified
compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys'
and experts' fees.

On October 14, 2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Depot et
Placement du Quebec and the Newport News Employees' Retirement
Fund as co-lead plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on December 15, 2014, which alleges substantially
similar claims, but which does not name the chief accounting
officer as a defendant.

On March 2, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim or plead fraud with the
requisite particularity.

On March 31, 2016, the Court granted that motion in part and
denied it in part. Only the claims related to the Company's
retail division were not dismissed.

On May 16, 2016, the Company answered the amended complaint. The
scheduling order in this action requires that: plaintiffs' class
certification motion be fully briefed by May 16, 2017; fact
discovery be completed by November 30, 2017; and expert discovery
be completed by May 23, 2018.

The Company believes the allegations in the amended complaint are
without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability,
if any, at this time.

Liquidity Services (the "Company") operates a network of leading
e-commerce marketplaces that enable buyers and sellers to
transact in an efficient, automated environment offering over 500
product categories.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Says "Lennen" Suit in Early Stages
------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the
class action lawsuit by Anthony and Beth Lennen are in the early
stages.

The Company said, "On May 20, 2016, we, certain of our
subsidiaries, and other third parties were named as defendants in
an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida by Anthony and Beth Lennen. The case is filed
as a putative class action; the plaintiffs seek to represent a
class consisting of themselves and all other purchasers of MVCD
points, from inception of the MVCD program in June 2010 to the
present, as well as all individuals who own or have owned weeks
in any resorts for which weeks have been added to the MVCD
program. Plaintiffs challenge the characterization of the
beneficial interests in the MVCD trust that are sold to customers
as real estate interests under Florida law. They also challenge
the structure of the trust and associated operational aspects of
the trust product. The relief sought includes, among other
things, declaratory relief, an unwinding of the MVCD product, and
punitive damages."

"On September 15, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and a motion to stay the case pending referral of
certain questions to Florida state regulators, which motions
remain pending.

"We dispute the material allegations in the complaint and intend
to defend against the action vigorously. Given the early stages
of the action and the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we
cannot estimate a range of the potential liability, if any, at
this time."


MDL 1720: Interchange Multidistrict Lawsuit vs. Visa Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. remains a defendant in an Interchange Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL) involving putative class actions regarding a
settlement agreement signed in 2012, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On November 23, 2016, class plaintiffs that signed the 2012
Settlement Agreement filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's
decision that vacated the district court's certification of the
merchant class and reversed the approval of the settlement.  The
Supreme Court denied the petition on March 27, 2017.

On November 30, 2016, the district court entered an order
appointing interim counsel for two putative classes of
plaintiffs, a "Damages Class" and an "Injunctive Relief Class."
Following the district court's order, on February 8, 2017,
plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Damages
Class sought leave to file an amended complaint and plaintiffs
purporting to act on behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief
Class filed a new class complaint.

The plaintiffs that signed the 2012 Settlement Agreement, acting
on behalf of the putative Damages Class, filed a motion
requesting leave to file a Third Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint.  The complaint seeks money damages alleged to
range in the tens of billions of dollars (subject to trebling),
as well as attorneys' fees and injunctive relief, and names as
defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, MasterCard
Incorporated and MasterCard International Incorporated, and
certain U.S. financial institutions.

The plaintiffs assert that the proposed complaint updates, among
other things, claims for damages and accounts for industry
developments.  Defendants opposed the Damages Class plaintiffs'
motion on March 10, 2017.

A new group of purported class plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
the putative Injunctive Relief Class, filed a class action
complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
attorneys' fees.  That complaint seeks, among other things, an
injunction against: the setting of default interchange rates;
certain Visa Rules relating to merchants, including the honor-
all-cards rule; and various transaction fees, including the fixed
acquirer network fee.  The complaint names as defendants Visa
Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated
and MasterCard International Incorporated, and certain U.S.
financial institutions.

On February 8, 2017, the same day that the putative Damages Class
plaintiffs sought leave to file an amended complaint and the
putative Injunctive Relief Class plaintiffs filed a new class
action complaint, certain other individual merchants filed
motions in existing actions in MDL 1720 requesting leave to amend
their complaints.  Merchants requesting leave to amend assert,
among other things, that their proposed complaints add claims for
injunctive relief and update claims for damages.  Defendants
opposed the various merchants' motions on March 10, 2017.  In
addition, on February 8, 2017, certain individual merchants filed
a new action in federal court which was subsequently included in
MDL 1720.

A number of individual merchant actions previously filed have
been settled and remain settled, but the settlement agreement
with Wal-Mart Stores Inc. automatically terminated upon the
exhaustion of appeals concerning the reversal of approval of the
2012 Settlement Agreement.  The termination results in a decrease
of the "settled" percentage of Visa-branded payment card sales
volume of merchants who opted out of the 2012 Settlement
Agreement.

Consequently, as of April 21, 2017, Visa has reached settlement
agreements with individual merchants representing approximately
34% of the Visa-branded payment card sales volume of merchants
who opted out of the 2012 Settlement Agreement.

Unlike the matters above, all of which were filed in federal
court or are pending in MDL 1720, one merchant filed a case on
February 17, 2017, in Texas state court.  The Texas merchant
generally pursues claims on allegations similar to those raised
in MDL 1720.  Based on currently available information, the
Company believes this matter may be covered by the U.S.
retrospective responsibility plan.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide.
The Company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value
and information among consumers, merchants, financial
institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government
entities.  It has a strategic partnership agreement with Oman
Arab Bank to convert the bank's current electron cards to chip-
and-PIN debit cards.  Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.


METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON: Bid to Dismiss "Kerpen" Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James C. Cacheris of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, granted
the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the case captioned PHIL
KERPEN, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS
AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, No. 1:16cv1307 (JCC/TCB)(E.D.
Va.), for Failure to State a Claim.

Judge Cacheris also denied the Plaintiffs' Motions for Partial
Summary Judgment and for Leave to File Supplemental Authority and
dismissed the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Plaintiffs -- individuals who "have used, and continue to
use" the facilities at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
and Washington Dulles International Airport, and who pay tolls on
the Dulles toll road -- filed the putative class action on July
5, 2016.  The putative class includes "all persons or entities in
the United States who used the facilities located on or within
the premises" at National and Dulles "leased to MWAA and from
whom MWAA has exacted a fee, charge, toll or other similar
payment from November 2008 to present."

The Plaintiffs challenge MWAA's authority on a variety of
constitutional and statutory grounds.  Broadly speaking, they
contend that (i) MWAA results from an unlawful interstate compact
between Virginia and the District of Columbia (Counts I-II); (ii)
the federal government has improperly delegated federal power to
MWAA (Counts III-V); (iii) the tolls charged by MWAA are illegal
exactions (Count VI); (iv) MWAA has contravened the lease, and
the related federal law, under which it maintains properties
owned by the federal government (Counts VII-VIII); (v) MWAA and
the federal government have both violated the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) (Counts IX-X); and (vi) MWAA has violated 42
U.S.C. Section (Count XI).

The Court finds that MWAA is not a federal instrumentality
exercising federal power.  As Counts III, IV, and V of the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint rest on "the premise that MWAA
exercises federal power," those Counts fail as a matter of law,
Judge Cacheris held.

Count VI of the Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that tolls charged
by MWAA are illegal exactions that violate the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth Amendment.  The legal basis for this claim is
unclear, the judge pointed out.  Indeed, the parties are unable
to agree as to the body of law under which the claim arises, the
judge held.  The Court notes that the Plaintiffs' counsel brought
a similar claim in Corr v. Metro that engendered similar
confusion.

The Court gleans that -- as in Corr -- the Plaintiffs' illegal
exaction claim is not freestanding, but rather is "parasitic on"
Plaintiffs' other claims.  It posits that MWAA collected money
from Plaintiffs while operating illegally, and so that collection
of money was itself illegal, the judge said.  As the Court finds
that the other counts of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint lack
merit, the Plaintiffs' illegal exaction claim also fails, the
Court concluded.

Similarly, Count XI of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges
that MWAA violated 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 based on the
constitutional claims discussed and rejected.  As they failed to
"prove a violation of the underlying constitutional right," the
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Section 1983, the
judge ruled.

Counts VII and VIII of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint allege
that MWAA has violated the Transfer Act and the lease under which
it operates National and Dulles.  These claims are effectively
identical, as the Transfer Act dictates the pertinent terms of
the lease.  The Plaintiffs contend that MWAA has contravened
three provisions of the Transfer Act.

If, as Plaintiffs claim, MWAA could only satisfy its obligations
under 49 U.S.C. Section 47107(a)(13)(A) by putting excess revenue
in a trust fund, the lease and Transfer Act would say so.
Instead, the lease and Transfer Act entrust MWAA with discretion.
The Plaintiffs have established they would exercise that
discretion differently. That, however, does not demonstrate MWAA
has violated 49 U.S.C. Section 47107(a)(13)(A), notwithstanding
the Plaintiffs' apparent confidence that they know best how to
run Dulles, the judge said.

In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege any
violation of the Transfer Act and airport lease.  The Court will
therefore dismiss Counts VII and VIII of Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint.

Finally, the Plaintiffs allege in Counts IX and X of their
Amended Complaint that MWAA, the Department of Transportation,
and the Secretary have all violated the APA.  The Court held that
MWAA is not a federal instrumentality and is therefore not an
"authority of the Government of the United States" subject to the
APA.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' APA claim against the federal
defendants lacks merit whatever its formulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2017 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/5wST9c from Leagle.com

Phil Kerpen, Plaintiff, represented by Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr
Duncan LLP.

Phil Kerpen, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Cynkar,
McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC, Christopher I. Kachouroff,
Christopher I. Kachouroff, Patrick Michael McSweeney, McSweeney
Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC, pro hac vice & Stuart Kyle Duncan,
Schaerr Duncan LLP, pro hac vice.

Austin Ruse, Plaintiff, represented by Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr
Duncan LLP, Robert J. Cynkar, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC,
Christopher I. Kachouroff, Christopher I. Kachouroff, pro hac
vice, Patrick Michael McSweeney, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff
PLLC, pro hac vice & Stuart Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan LLP, pro
hac vice.

Cathy Ruse, Plaintiff, represented by Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr
Duncan LLP., Robert J. Cynkar, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff
PLLC, Christopher I. Kachouroff, Christopher I. Kachouroff, pro
hac vice, Patrick Michael McSweeney, McSweeney Cynkar &
Kachouroff PLLC, pro hac vice & Stuart Kyle Duncan, Schaerr
Duncan LLP, pro hac vice.

Charlotte Sellier, Plaintiff, represented by Gene C. Schaerr,
Schaerr Duncan LLP, Robert J. Cynkar, McSweeney Cynkar &
Kachouroff PLLC, Christopher I. Kachouroff, Christopher I.
Kachouroff, pro hac vice, Patrick Michael McSweeney, McSweeney
Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC, pro hac vice & Stuart Kyle Duncan,
Schaerr Duncan LLP, pro hac vice.

Joel Sellier, Plaintiff, represented by Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr
Duncan LLP, Robert J. Cynkar, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC,
Christopher I. Kachouroff, Christopher I. Kachouroff, pro hac
vice, Patrick Michael McSweeney, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff
PLLC, pro hac vice & Stuart Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan LLP, pro
hac vice.

Michael Gingras, Plaintiff, represented by Gene C. Schaerr,
Schaerr Duncan LLP, Robert J. Cynkar, McSweeney Cynkar &
Kachouroff PLLC, Christopher I. Kachouroff, Christopher I.
Kachouroff, pro hac vice, Patrick Michael McSweeney, McSweeney
Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC & Stuart Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan
LLP, pro hac vice.

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Defendant,
represented by Leslie W. Kostyshak, Hunton & Williams LLP & Sona
Rewari, Hunton & Williams, pro hac vice.

Anthony Foxx, Defendant, represented by Dennis Carl Barghaan,
Jr., United States Attorney's Office, Kimere Jane Kimball, US
Attorney's Office & Lauren A. Wetzler, United States Attorney
Office.

U. S. Department of Transportation, Defendant, represented by
Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., United States Attorney's Office &
Kimere Jane Kimball, US Attorney's Office.

Commonwealth of Virginia, represented by Stuart Alan Raphael,
Office of the Attorney General.

District of Columbia, Intervenor, represented by Michael Angelo
Tilghman, Office of the Attorney General for the District of
Columbia.

Karl A. Racine, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Michael
Angelo Tilghman, Office of the Attorney General for the District
of Columbia.


MISSION-HOPE: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Martinez and Mayra Ruiz, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Mission-Hope Day Program, LLC;
Village Parkway Day Program, LLC; Mission-Hope Day Program
Brentwood, LLC; Osgood Road-Day Program, LLC; Mission Blvd. Day
Program, LLC; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
RG17861276 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wage premiums, damages, restitution, and other relief
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate an adult day care centers that provide
services to individuals 18 years old and over with developmental
disabilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John E. Hill, Esq.
      Enrique Martinez, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOHN E. HILL
      333 Hegenberger Road, Ste. 500
      Oakland, CA 94621
      Telephone: (510) 588-1000
      Facsimile: (510) 633-2504

         - and -

      Morris J. Bailer, Esq.
      300 Lakeside Drive, Ste. 1000
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510)763-9800
      Facsimile: (510)835-1417


MISSOURI, USA: Endicott Moves to Certify Class of NCC Inmates
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled FRANKLIN G. ENDICOTT
#l57521, Plainttiff No. 1, CRAIG DAWDY #166501, Plaintiff No. 2
v. LARRY ALLEN, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00029-DDN (E.D. Mo.),
ask the Court to grant their motion for class certification and
for appointment of counsel.

Larry Allen is a correctional officer at the Northeast
Correctional Center.

The Plaintiffs are inmates at the Northeast Correctional Center
and are appearing pro se.  They allege that the MDOC Kosher diet
policy does not provide the necessary foods required for the
Judaism/Messianic Sabbath and holy holidays nor do the offender
canteens sell kosher foods, which is a clean violation of the
Plaintiffs First Amendment rights to practice their religions.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ej97Km8S


MOCON INC: Faces "Ellebracht" Lawsuit Over Ametek Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
PAT ELLEBRACHT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. MOCON, INC., ROBERT L. DEMOREST, ROBERT
F. GALLAGHER, BRADLEY D. GOSKOWICZ, TOM C. THOMAS, DAVID J. WARD,
KATHLEEN IVERSON, and PAUL R. ZELLER, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-
cv-01662 (D. Minn., May 18, 2017), Case No. 0:17-cv-01662 (D.
Minn., May 18, 2017), alleges that the proxy statement in
connection with the sale of the Company to AMETEK, Inc. omits
material facts necessary to make the statements therein not false
or misleading, in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act.

Specifically, the Proxy Statement is materially deficient and
misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose material
information about the financial projections prepared by the
Company and relied upon by the Company's financial advisor, and
omits material information with respect to the process and events
leading up to the Proposed Transaction, including material
information concerning Baird's conflicts of interest and the
confidentiality agreements entered into by potential strategic
partners.

The Proposed Transaction was valued at approximately $182
million.

Defendant MOCON is a Minnesota corporation, headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota that designs, manufactures, markets and
services products, and provides consulting services, primarily in
the test and measurement, analytical instrument and services
markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russell M. Spence, Jr., Esq.
     HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
     8050 West 78th Street
     Edina, MN 55439
     Phone: 952.941.4005
     E-mail: mspence@hjlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, D.C. 20007
     Phone: (202) 524-4290
     Fax: (202) 333-2121
     Email: denright@zlk.com
            etripodi@zlk.com


MY SIZE: Response to Lightcom's Class Status Bid Due Sept. 2
------------------------------------------------------------
My Size, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, that on May
3rd, 2017, Lightcom (Israel) Ltd., an Israeli company, alleging
that it is a shareholder of the Company, filed a motion with the
Tel Aviv District Court (Financial Division) to approve an action
against the Company as a shareholders' class action. The subject
matter of the action appears to be an immediate report filed by
the Company on April 19th, 2017. The Court ordered the Company to
respond to the motion by September 2nd, 2017. The Company is
reviewing the action and the motion together with its legal
counsel and will report its initial response in due course.


NEAL TRUCKING: Final Approval of "Poisson" Suit Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Ronald Poisson,
individually and on behalf of all the classes and aggrieved
employees v. Neal Trucking, Inc., Randy Neal, David Beal, and
Does 1 through 10, Case No. 5:13-cv-02241-VAP-DTB (C.D. Cal.),
moves the Court for an order:

   1. confirming the preliminary certification of the Class for
      settlement purposes only;

   2. finally approving the settlement;

   3. confirming appointment of the Plaintiff as Class
      Representative;

   4. confirming the appointment of Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.,
      of Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C. and Lonnie C. Blanchard, III,
      Esq., of The Blanchard Law Group, APC as Class Counsel;

   5. approving an award of $48,750 in attorneys' fees to Peter
      R. Dion-Kindem, Esq., and Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.;

   6. approving an award of actual costs to Class Counsel as
      follows:

      a. The amount of $4,573 to the Blanchard Law Group, APC;
         and

      b. The amount of $3,479 to Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C.;

   7. approving a Class Representative Enhancement Payment of
      $1,000 to Plaintiff Ronald Poisson;

   8. approving Settlement Administration Costs of $5,000 for
      Claims Administration;

   9. approving an award of 75% of $7,500 in civil penalties
      under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
      (Labor Code Section 2698 et seq.), of which $5,625 will be
      paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency; and

  10. directing that the [Proposed] Final Approval Order and
      Judgment be entered.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sjUsHZ8X

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
          PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P. C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 883-4900
          Facsimile: (818) 883-4902
          E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

               - and -

          Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.
          THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
          3311 East Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90023
          Telephone: (213) 599-8255
          Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
          E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Still Defends Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
continues to defend against the securities class action.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against HLSS
and certain of its current and former officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions,
Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29,
2015; (ii) Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et
al., No. 15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015; and
(iii) W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing
Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on
February 13, 2015. On April 2, 2015, these lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action, which is referred to as the
"Securities Action."

On April 28, 2015, lead plaintiffs, lead counsel and liaison
counsel were appointed in the Securities Action. On November 9,
2015, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On
January 27, 2016, the Securities Action was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
and given the Index No. 16-CV-60165 (S.D. Fla.).

The Securities Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS
Chairman William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President, and Chief
Executive Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial
Officer James E. Lauter. The Securities Action asserts causes of
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on certain public
disclosures made by HLSS relating to its relationship with Ocwen
and HLSS's risk management and internal controls. More
specifically, the consolidated class action complaint alleges
that a series of statements in HLSS's disclosures were materially
false and misleading, including statements about (i) Ocwen's
servicing capabilities; (ii) HLSS's contingencies and legal
proceedings; (iii) its risk management and internal controls; and
(iv) certain related party transactions.

The consolidated class action complaint also appears to allege
that HLSS's financial statements for the years ended 2012 and
2013, and the first quarter ended March 30, 2014, were false and
misleading based on HLSS's August 18, 2014 restatement. Lead
plaintiffs in the Securities Action also allege that HLSS misled
investors by failing to disclose, among other things, information
regarding governmental investigations of Ocwen's business
practices. Lead plaintiffs seek money damages under the Exchange
Act in an amount to be proven at trial and reasonable costs,
expenses, and fees.

On February 11, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Securities Action in its entirety. On June 6, 2016, all
allegations except those regarding certain related party
transactions were dismissed. New Residential intends to
vigorously defend the Securities Action.


NEW YORK HOME CARE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Ikramov Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Mirzagadayboy Ikramov, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Greater New York Home Care, LLC, Case No.
652788/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 23, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay time and one half the minimum wage
rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week and spread
of hours pay for the days in which the Plaintiff and the Class
Members worked in excess often hours as required by the New York
Labor Law.

Greater New York Home Care, LLC provides home health care to
frail elderly individuals who live in New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP. P.C.
      1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      Facsimile: (866) 261-5478
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


NUVASIVE INC: Dec. Trial Set for Securities Class Status Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A trial has been set for December 18, 2017 to hear NuVasive,
Inc.'s appeal on an order granting class certification to the
plaintiffs in a securities litigation, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California naming the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically relating to the purported
improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid.
The operative complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013.  The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys'
fees.

On February 13, 2014, Brad Mauss, the lead plaintiff in the case,
filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Securities Laws.  The Company answered the complaint on
August 25, 2016, and discovery is proceeding.

The plaintiffs filed motions for class certification on October
28, 2016 and the Company's opposition papers were filed on
January 9, 2017.

On March 22, 2017, the court issued an order granting class
certification.  The Company filed a petition to appeal the order
granting class certification with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit on April 5, 2017 and the plaintiffs had until
April 27, 2017 to respond to the petition.  Trial has been set
for December 18, 2017.

The Company said, "At March 31, 2017, the probable outcome of
this litigation cannot be determined, nor can the Company
estimate a range of potential loss.  In accordance with
authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies,
the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this
litigation."

NuVasive, Inc., a medical device company, develops and markets
minimally-disruptive surgical products and procedurally-
integrated solutions for spine surgery.  Its products focus on
applications for spine fusion surgery, including biologics used
for spinal fusion process.  The Company was founded in 1997 and
is headquartered in San Diego, California.


PBF ENERGY: Appeal by Chalmette Refining and Eaton Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Chalmette Refining
and Eaton's appeal of the judgment on the mini-trial is pending.

The Company said, "On September 2, 2011, prior to our ownership
of the Chalmette refinery, the plaintiff in Vincent Caruso, et
al. v. Chalmette Refining, L.L.C., filed an action on behalf of
himself and other Louisiana residents who live or own property in
St. Bernard Parish and Orleans Parish and whose property was
allegedly contaminated and who allegedly suffered any personal or
property damages as a result of an emission of spent catalyst,
sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide from the Chalmette refinery
on September 6, 2010. Plaintiffs claim to have suffered injuries,
symptoms, and property damage as a result of the release.
Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages, interest and
costs."

"In August 2015, there was a mini-trial for four plaintiffs for
property damage relating to home and vehicle cleaning. On April
12, 2016, the trial court rendered judgment limiting damages
ranging from $100,000 to $500,000 for home cleaning and $25,000
to $75,000 for vehicle cleaning to the four plaintiffs. The trial
court found Chalmette Refining and co-defendant Eaton Corporation
("Eaton"), to be solitarily liable for the damages.

"Chalmette Refining and Eaton filed an appeal in August 2016 of
the judgment on the mini-trial, which appeal is pending. There is
no stay pending appeal.

"The potential class members have not been identified as the
parties are negotiating a claims process for claims such as home
cleaning, vehicle cleaning, and alleged personal injury. The
claims process would also include a class notice to identify
potential class members. Depending upon the ultimate class size
and the nature of the claims, the outcome may have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, or cash flows."

PBF Energy Inc. ("PBF Energy") was formed as a Delaware
corporation on November 7, 2011 and is the sole managing member
of PBF Energy Company LLC ("PBF LLC"), a Delaware limited
liability company, with a controlling interest in PBF LLC and its
subsidiaries.


PBF ENERGY: Still Defends "Goldstein" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon
Mobil Corporation, et al.

The Company said, "On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et
al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., we and PBF Energy Company
LLC, and our subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and
Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of our Torrance
refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette
La Bella and others similarly situated. The complaint was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles and alleges negligence, strict liability, ultrahazardous
activity, a continuing private nuisance, a permanent private
nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a permanent public
nuisance and trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015
electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance
Refinery which was then owned and operated by Exxon.

"The operation of the Torrance Refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to our acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in
the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to
the ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for any
liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance Refinery.

"While we are evaluating the allegations and cannot currently
estimate the amount or the timing of the resolution of this
matter, we believe the outcome will not have a material impact on
our liquidity, financial position or results of operation."

PBF Energy Inc. ("PBF Energy") was formed as a Delaware
corporation on November 7, 2011 and is the sole managing member
of PBF Energy Company LLC ("PBF LLC"), a Delaware limited
liability company, with a controlling interest in PBF LLC and its
subsidiaries.


PHILIP MORRIS: Bid to Certify Marlboro Light Smoker's Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARY A. CARROLL and BETTY C. LYNN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., a Foreign Corporation,
f/k/a PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, Defendant, C.A. No. 03C-08-167
AML (Del. Super.), Judge Abigail M. LeGrow of the Superior Court
of Delaware:

   (i) denied the motion for summary judgment as to preemption
because the Plaintiff's claims arise from a state law imposing a
general duty not to deceive, not a law creating requirements or
prohibitions regarding smoking and health;

  (ii) denied the motion for class certification because
individual issues involving causation and fact of injury
predominate over the common issues; and

(iii) concluded the motion to strike is moot in light of her
ruling on the motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff, Mary Carroll, filed the action alleging Philip
Morris violated the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and unjustly
enriched itself by marketing and selling its Marlboro Light
cigarettes.  The long-time smoker of "light" cigarettes seeks to
hold the tobacco company that sold the cigarettes liable for
economic harm allegedly suffered by the plaintiff and members of
a purported class that, if certified, would comprise smokers who
purchased "light" cigarettes from the defendant.  Confronted with
a series of decisions in other jurisdictions denying class
certification for similar claims, the plaintiff attempts to
distinguish this case on the basis of her allegation that, not
only were the cigarettes in question not "safer" than regular
cigarettes, they potentially were more harmful due to the
mutagenicity of the tar consumers ingested when smoking them.

The plaintiff contends the defendant, Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
fraudulently concealed from consumers and public health agencies
that the company's popular cigarettes, Marlboro Lights,
"potentially" were more dangerous than full-flavored cigarettes.
The plaintiff urges the Court to certify a class consisting of
Delaware residents who smoked Marlboro Lights.  Philip Morris
contends class certification is not appropriate in this case
because, among other reasons, the class is not ascertainable and
individual issues predominate over those susceptible of common
proof.  Philip Morris also seeks summary judgment in its favor on
the basis that federal law expressly preempts the plaintiff's
claims.  Finally, Philip Morris seeks to strike the expert report
and conclusions proffered by the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Marvin
Goldberg.

There are two key questions in this case:

   (1) Does the plaintiff's allegation that Marlboro Lights
potentially were more dangerous than full-flavored cigarettes
sufficiently distinguish this case from the numerous cases
concluding "lights" claims are not amenable to class
certification?

   (2) Does a federal law regulating labeling and advertising for
cigarettes preempt the plaintiff's state law claims for consumer
fraud?

Judge LeGrow held that it reasonably cannot be argued that the
DCFA is a "requirement or prohibition" based on "smoking and
health."  To the contrary, it is a codification of a general duty
not to deceive consumers and applies to all manufacturers and
sellers of any product, the judge said.  The Court held that
Philip Morris's argument that the Court should draw a distinction
similar to that drawn in Pooshs v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., and
In re Tobacco Litigation is inconsistent with Cipollone v.
Liggett Grp. and Altria Group, Inc. v. Good.  To focus narrowly
on whether the concealment or misrepresentation occurred in an
advertisement or promotion is to ignore the limitation in Section
5(b) regarding whether the requirement or prohibition relates to
smoking or health, Judge LeGrow concluded.

Judge LeGrow further held that most other courts that have
considered the issue have reached the same conclusion: consumer
fraud claims relating to low-yield cigarettes are not amenable to
class certification because of the need for individualized proof
regarding fact of injury.

Put simply, the record does not support the conclusion or
inference that a cigarette that may be more dangerous to
consumers has no market value; the evidence of Marlboro Reds'
steady market share during the decades that full-flavored
cigarettes were described as more dangerous is more than enough
proof to defeat any class-wide inference on that point, the judge
said.  Instead, individual inquiry will be necessary to determine
what each individual consumer would have done had Philip Morris
not allegedly concealed information regarding the mutagenicity of
the tar in Marlboro Lights, the judge added.

Accordingly, Judge LeGrow concluded the Plaintiff has not met her
burden under Rule 23(b)(3) to show that common issues predominate
over individual issues and the motion to certify the class
therefore is denied.

Having denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, the
issue of the admissibility of Dr. Marvin Goldberg's report
largely is moot, the judge ruled.  Large portions of Dr.
Goldberg's report may be unnecessary in view of Judge LeGrow's
decision on class certification, the judge said.  To the extent
consumers, including the Plaintiff, pursue individual claims
against Philip Morris and retain Dr. Goldberg, the Court then may
address his report's admissibility with a more focused
understanding of the scope of his opinion and its relation to the
issues in each particular case, the judge noted.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/H1h4lF from Leagle.com

Philip M. Finestrauss, Esq., Philip M. Finestrauss, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware; Stephen R. Fine, Esq., Law Offices of
Stephen R.Fine, Manchester, New Hampshire; Finis E. Williams,
III, Esquire, Finis E. Williams, III, Esq., Concord, New
Hampshire; Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Donald E. Reid, Esq., Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel,
Wilmington, Delaware; John C. Massaro, Esq. and David E. Kouba,
Esq., Arnold & Porter, Washington, DC.; Attorneys for Defendant.


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Still Defends Consolidated Investor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports, Inc. still defends itself against a consolidated
action filed on behalf of a purported putative class of
investors, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 25, 2017.

Putative class action complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas -- Dallas
Division against Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and
Charles H. Turner in August and October 2015 alleging violations
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The lawsuits, which have been consolidated into a single action
captioned Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1
Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner,
Defendants, were filed on behalf of a purported putative class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1
Imports, Inc. between December 19, 2013 and December 17, 2015.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages purportedly caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint seeks certification as a class action,
unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees.

The Company said, "Although the ultimate outcome of litigation
cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that
this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against it
vigorously."

Pier 1 Imports, Inc. engages in the retail sale of decorative
accessories, furniture, candles, housewares, gifts, and seasonal
products.  It offers decorative accents and textiles, such as
rugs, wall decorations and mirrors, pillows, bedding, lamps,
vases, dried and artificial flowers, baskets, ceramics,
dinnerware, candles, fragrances, gifts, and seasonal items; and
furniture and furniture cushions that are used in living, dining,
office, kitchen and bedroom areas, sunrooms, and patios.  The
Company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas.


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Still Defends Class Actions on Calif. Labor Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2017 that it
remains a defendant in various class actions pending in
California relating to state labor laws.

Specifically, the Company is a defendant in lawsuits pending in
federal courts in California containing various class action
allegations under California state wage-and-hour laws.  These
lawsuits seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

The Company said, "While it is not possible to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits, as of the date of this report, the
Company does not believe any reasonably foreseeable resolution of
these matters would have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity."

Pier 1 Imports, Inc. engages in the retail sale of decorative
accessories, furniture, candles, housewares, gifts, and seasonal
products.  It offers decorative accents and textiles, such as
rugs, wall decorations and mirrors, pillows, bedding, lamps,
vases, dried and artificial flowers, baskets, ceramics,
dinnerware, candles, fragrances, gifts, and seasonal items; and
furniture and furniture cushions that are used in living, dining,
office, kitchen and bedroom areas, sunrooms, and patios.  The
Company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas.


PPL CORP: Cane Run Environmental Claims Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the District Court
has issued an order declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction and dismissing the case related to the Cane Run
Environmental Claims (PPL, LKE and LG&E) in its entirety.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky alleging violations of the Clean Air Act and RCRA. In
addition, these plaintiffs assert common law claims of nuisance,
trespass and negligence. These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief
and civil penalties, plus costs and attorney fees, for the
alleged statutory violations. Under the common law claims, these
plaintiffs seek monetary compensation and punitive damages for
property damage and diminished property values for a class
consisting of residents within four miles of the Cane Run plant.
In their individual capacities, these plaintiffs sought
compensation for alleged adverse health effects.

In response to a motion to dismiss filed by PPL and LG&E, in July
2014, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' RCRA claims and all but
one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common law
tort claims. In November 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint removing the personal injury claims and removing
certain previously named plaintiffs.

In February 2017, the District Court issued an order dismissing
PPL as a defendant and dismissing the final federal claim against
LG&E under the Clean Air Act, and directed the parties to submit
briefs regarding whether the court should continue to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction regarding the remaining state law-only
claims.

On April 13, 2017, the District Court issued an order declining
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the case in
its entirety, subject to certain federal appeals or state court
re-filing rights of the parties.

PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter. LG&E
retired one coal-fired unit at the Cane Run plant in March 2015
and the remaining two coal-fired units at the plant in June 2015.


PROCORP LLC: Faces "Harris" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
KENDALL HARRIS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. PROCORP, LLC and TIMOTHY SCHULTZ,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-11601-RHC-RSW E.D. Mich., May 18,
2017), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act by paying its drivers and porters, including Plaintiff, a
straight hourly rate of pay for all hours worked each week,
including hours in excess of 4p, as opposed to time-and-one-half
of their regular rate for hours in excess of 40.

Procorp, LLC provides vehicle porter services, including
transporting new vehicles on behalf of dealerships.  Plaintiff
was employed by Defendants as non-exempt driver and porter.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jesse L. Young, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, Suite 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: (248) 355-0300
     Fax: (248) 436-8453
     E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com

        - and -

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
     JTB LAW GROUP, L.L.C.
     155 2nd Street, Suite 4
     Jersey City, NJ 07302
     Phone: (201) 630-0000
     E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
             nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


QUALCOMM INC: "Mackay" Suit Moved to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michelle Mackay, Colleen Sparke,
Janet Silverness, Melanie Barclay, Tiffany Ringo, Hallie Lingo,
Crystal Hohenthaner, Daniel K. Brendtro, Daniel Delier, Paul
Nelson, Catherine Kaderavek, Karen Carlet, David Waring and Leon
Theodore Lipka III, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Qualcomm Incorporated,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00148, was removed on April 19, 2017
from the District of Southern California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01903-LHK to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh.

Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the Code
Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network
carriers rely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets
and holds the largest number of Standard Essential Patents for
CDMA technology that it incorporated into virtually every
relevant cellular standard in the last several years.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Jason S Hartley, Esq.
   Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP
   550 West C Street, Suite 1750
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 400-5822
   Fax: (619) 400-5832
   Email: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Asim M. Bhansali, Esq.
   Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
   633 Battery Street
   San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
   Tel: (415) 391-5400
   Fax: (415) 397-7188
   Email: abhansali@keker.com

        - and -

   David W Rizk, Esq.
   Keker& Van Nest
   633 Battery Street
   San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
   Tel: (415) 391-5400
   Fax: (415) 397-7188
   Email: drizk@kvn.com

        - and -

   Eugene Morris Paige, Esq.
   Keker& Van Nest Peters LLP
   633 Battery Street
   San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
   Tel: (415) 391-5400
   Fax: (415) 397-7188
   Email: EMP@kvn.com

        - and -

   Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq.
   Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
   633 Battery Street
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 391-5400
   Fax: (415) 397-7188
   Email: jsessions@keker.com

       - and -

   Robert A. Van Nest, Esq.
   Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
   633 Battery Street
   San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
   Tel: (415) 391-5400
   Fax: (415) 397-7188
   Email: rvannest@keker.com



QUALCOMM INC: "Miller" Suit Moved to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rachel L. Miller on Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Qualcomm
Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-
cv-00147 was removed on April 19, 2017 from the Southern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Jose). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01902-LHK to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh.

Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the Code
Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network
carriers rely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets
and holds the largest number of Standard Essential Patents for
CDMA technology that it incorporated into virtually every
relevant cellular standard in the last several years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
   Scott + Scott LLP
   707 Broadway, Suite 1000
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 233-4565
   Fax: (619) 233-0508
   Email: cburke@scott-scott.com

        - and -

   Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
   Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &Lerach LLP
   One Pennsylvania Plaza
   New York, NY 10119-0165
   Tel: (212) 594-5300

        - and -

   Walter W. Noss, Esq.
   Scott+Scott LLP
   707 Broadway, Suite 1000
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 233-4565
   Fax: (619) 233-0508
   Email: wnoss@scott-scott.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Asim M. Bhansali, Esq.
   Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
   633 Battery Street
   San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
   Tel: (415) 391-5400
   Fax: (415) 397-7188
   Email: abhansali@keker.com

       - and -

   David W Rizk, Esq.
   Keker& Van Nest
   633 Battery Street
   San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
   Tel: (415) 391-5400
   Fax: (415) 397-7188
   Email: drizk@kvn.com

        - and -

   Eugene Morris Paige, Esq.
   Keker& Van Nest Peters LLP
   633 Battery Street
   San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
   Tel: (415) 391-5400
   Fax: (415) 397-7188
   Email: EMP@kvn.com

        - and -

   Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq.
   Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
   633 Battery Street
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 391-5400
   Fax: (415) 397-7188
   Email: jsessions@keker.com

        - and -

   Robert A. Van Nest, Esq.
   Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
   633 Battery Street
   San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
   Tel: (415) 391-5400
   Fax: (415) 397-7188
   Email: rvannest@keker.com


RANDOLPH CTY, AL: Edwards Seeks to Certify Class of Arrestees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled KANDACE KAY EDWARDS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DAVID
COFIELD, in his official capacity as Randolph County Sheriff,
CHRISTOPHER MAY, in his official capacity as Circuit Clerk, JILL
PUCKETT, in her official capacity as Magistrate of the Randolph
County District Court, and CLAY TINNEY, in his official capacity
as the District Court Judge, of the Randolph County District
Court, Case No. 3:17-cv-00321-WKW-SRW (M.D. Ala.), move the Court
for an order certifying the case as a class action, and the class
consisting of:

     all arrestees who are or who will be jailed in Randolph
     County who are unable to pay the secured monetary bail
     amount required for their release.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate Kandace Kay
Edwards as class representative, and to appoint their attorneys
as class co-counsel.  The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to
schedule a hearing on the matter and to direct the parties
to begin class discovery prior to ruling on class certification.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=O8iuso8q

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel Brooke, Esq.
          Micah West, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          400 Washington Avenue
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 956-8200
          Facsimile: (334) 956-8481
          E-mail: samuel.brooke@splcenter.org
                  micah.west@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          Katherine Hubbard, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 930-3835
          E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org
                  katherine@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Randall C. Marshall, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF ALABAMA, INC.
          P.O. Box 6179
          Montgomery, AL 36106-0179
          Telephone: (334) 420-1741
          E-mail: rmarshall@aclualabama.org

               - and -

          Brandon Buskey, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          CRIMINAL LAW REFORM PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2654
          E-mail: bbuskey@aclu.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          James W. "Jim" Davis, Esq.
          SECTION CHIEF
          CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE SECTION
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          501 Washington Avenue
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          E-mail: jimdavis@ago.state.al.us

               - and -

          Jamie H. Kidd, Esq.
          J. Randall McNeill, Esq.
          WEBB & ELEY, P.C.
          P.O. Box 240909
          Montgomery, AL 36124
          Telephone: (334) 262-1850
          Facsimile: (334) 262-1772
          E-mail: jkidd@webbeley.com
                  rmcneill@webbeley.com

               - and -

          John Alvin Tinney, Esq.
          RANDOLPH COUNTY ATTORNEY
          P.O. Box 1430
          Roanoke, AL 36274-9121
          E-mail: johntinneyattorney@gmail.com


REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Strader" Parties Proceeding with Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that
in the case, Strader, et al. and Hall v. PHH Corporation, et al.
(U.S. District Court for the Central District of California), the
parties are proceeding with discovery.

This is a purported class action brought by four California
residents against 15 defendants, including Realogy and certain of
its subsidiaries, PHH Corporation and PHH Home Loans, LLC (a
joint venture between Realogy and PHH), alleging violations of
Section 8(a) of RESPA.  Plaintiffs seek to represent two
subclasses comprised of all persons in the United States who,
since January 31, 2005, (1) obtained a RESPA-covered mortgage
loan from either (a) PHH Home Loans, LLC or one of its
subsidiaries, or (b) one of the mortgage services managed by PHH
Corporation for other lenders, and (2) paid a fee for title
insurance or settlement services to TRG or one of its
subsidiaries.  Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that PHH
Home Loans, LLC operates in violation of RESPA and that the other
defendants violate RESPA by referring business to one another
under agreements or arrangements.  Plaintiffs seek treble damages
and an award of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements.

On February 5, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case claiming that not only do the claims lack merit, but they
are time-barred under RESPA's one-year statute of limitations.

On April 5, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on April 21, 2016,
and a third amended complaint on May 12, 2016.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.

The Court denied the motion on October 6, 2016, without prejudice
to defendants' ability to move for summary judgment after
discovery. The parties are proceeding with discovery.

The case raises significant claims and rests in part on certain
interpretations of RESPA by the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau ("CFPB"), which are the subject of pending industry
litigation in various jurisdictions. As with all class action
litigation, the case is inherently complex and subject to many
uncertainties.

"We believe that we and the joint venture have complied with
RESPA, the regulations promulgated thereunder and existing
regulatory guidance. There can be no assurance, however, that if
the action continues and a large class is subsequently certified,
the plaintiffs will not seek a substantial damage award,
penalties and other remedies.  The Company will vigorously defend
this action," the Company said.

Realogy Holdings Corp. ("Realogy Holdings", "Realogy" or the
"Company") is a holding company for its consolidated subsidiaries
including Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC ("Realogy
Intermediate") and Realogy Group LLC ("Realogy Group") and its
consolidated subsidiaries. Realogy, through its subsidiaries, is
a global provider of residential real estate services. Neither
Realogy Holdings, the indirect parent of Realogy Group, nor
Realogy Intermediate, the direct parent company of Realogy Group,
conducts any operations other than with respect to its respective
direct or indirect ownership of Realogy Group.


REDDY ICE: July 24 Hearing on QSF Distribution Process
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: REDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC., Chapter
11, Debtors, Case No. 12-32349-SGJ-11 (N.D. Tex.), Judge Stacey
G. Jernigan of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, scheduled on July
24, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., a continued hearing on the Motion for
Claims Process, where the Court expects to rule on how to
disburse the Reddy Ice Qualified Settlement Fund ("QSF").

Reddy Ice, et al., which were, or are, among the country's
largest manufacturers and sellers of packaged ice, filed a
voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case on April 12, 2012.  Reddy
Ice was highly successful in swiftly obtaining confirmation of a
prepackaged reorganization plan on May 22, 2012.  The bankruptcy
case was administratively closed on Sept. 30, 2013.  Now, many
years later, counsel purportedly acting for the so-called
"Indirect Purchaser Class Plaintiffs" has moved to reopen the
bankruptcy case, for the sole purpose of asking the Court to
approve an "allocation plan, advertisement and claims process" so
that counsel for these class plaintiffs may at long-last
distribute (after payment of some additional fees and expenses)
what is left of a certain class action settlement fund that the
Court approved, and that was paid by Reddy Ice to counsel for the
Plaintiffs, in May 2012.

The Court approved a class action settlement early during the
Reddy Ice Chapter 11 case, and counsel for the Plaintiffs (after
paying its court-approved legal fees and expenses), has never
even notified the Plaintiffs of a claims submission process --
much less disbursed any of the settlement funds to any of the
claimants -- i.e., claimants that the Plaintiffs' counsel was
charged to "adequately represent."  The Court pointed out that
the five-year delay is disturbing, and the economics here -- and
the likely futility of reliably ascertaining a class of claimants
to whom to distribute funds, after all this time -- are equally
disturbing.

The settlement fund at issue was $700,000.  Of that, $406,585 has
been expended on professional fees and expenses, leaving
$297,503.  The costs now projected by the Plaintiffs' counsel for
advertising and setting up a claims process is estimated in its
pleadings to be another $179,812, which would leave $117,690 to
disburse to the class plaintiffs.  The thus-far-absent,
unidentified class plaintiffs are not individuals or estates of
individuals who were maimed or killed.  The class Plaintiffs are
essentially defined as consumers who bought a package of ice
anywhere in the continental United States, which was manufactured
by either Reddy Ice or one of two other big ice manufacturers,
between nine and sixteen years ago (i.e., during the years 2001-
2008).

The putative class action alleged that the big three sellers of
packaged ice in America engaged in anti-competitive conduct
during the years 2001-2008 and, thus, consumers presumably paid
too much for bags of ice.  And the Plaintiffs' counsel has all
but assured the court that the actual claimants are likely to
receive no more than a peppercorn once the remaining settlement
funds are disbursed.

Judge Jernigan held, "The Court knows that this is the reality of
many class action settlements (particularly where consumer
products are involved); there is often not a meaningful recovery.
And the Court well understands that class actions like this
sometimes serve a laudable purpose of deterring questionable
business practices.  But the situation here (the delay; the
obstacles to a reliable and feasible method for disbursing funds
that should have been obvious from "Day One") is most disturbing.
The Court was told long ago -- in motions and hearings -- that
the settlement fund at issue would be combined with a similar
settlement fund that had been obtained from another ice
manufacturer in a class action pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and disbursed
under the supervision of that court. That did not come to
fruition."

"In any event, the Court determined, at a hearing a few weeks
ago, that it was necessary to reopen the Reddy Ice bankruptcy
case so that the settlement it long-ago approved can finally be
somehow implemented.  The options for disbursement of the
settlement fund, at this point (so many years after any alleged
harm), are all imperfect -- to say the least," Judge Jernigan
added.

"The Court is struggling mightily with how there can be any
integrity and legitimacy in a process here -- especially so late
in the game," the judge stated.

"The Court will not condone a process where no proof of harm to
obtain Settlement funds is required, except for a "say-so"
checking of a box. To do so would invite mischief.  At a minimum,
it is not consistent with the integrity normally expected in the
bankruptcy system.  The Court is also not inclined to allow any
more professional fees to be paid from the QSF," the court added.

The Court sets forth the following imperfect possibilities for a
claims allowance and distribution process, and instructs
Plaintiffs' Counsel and any other parties-in-interest who wish to
express a position to file briefs within 30 days after the entry
of the Order:

   1. Option #1: The Plaintiffs' Counsel will place an
advertisement in USA Today soliciting claims from persons who
might have purchased ice (from Reddy Ice, Arctic, or Home City)
during 2001-2008 in one of the 18 states that have been
represented by the Plaintiffs' Counsel to permit monetary damages
to indirect purchasers.  The Claimants will be required to file a
proof of claim form with the Bankruptcy Clerk for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, with there being a
requirement that claimants include receipts as proof of purchase
and sign the proof of claim form under penalty of perjury.  After
a deadline (60 days perhaps), the Court can decide, based on the
number of claims filed (if any), whether claims analysis and
objections are warranted and who will do this.  If no legitimate
claims are filed (or so few are filed that there are excess
funds), Options #2 or #3 can be considered.

   2. Option #2: Forego a claims process altogether at this
point.  Simply remit the remaining QSF funds to Reddy Ice to
disburse pro rata to the allowed Class 8B claimants under their
confirmed plan (general unsecured creditors).

   3. Option #3: Cy pres disbursement.  Instruct Reddy Ice to,
within 30 days, designate a charity to whom to disburse the QSF
funds -- a direct payment of the money in the Registry of
bankruptcy court will be made to such charity.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2017 opinion and order is
available at https://is.gd/QlplsK from Leagle.com

Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., Debtor, represented by Jason S.
Brookner, Gray Reed & McGraw LLP, Sarah E. Castle, DLA Piper,
LLP, Gregg M. Galardi, DLA Piper, LLP & Vincent P. Slusher, DLA
Piper LLP.

Reddy Ice Corporation, Consolidated debtor, represented by Lydia
Rogers Webb, Gray Reed and McGraw LLP.

Ad Hoc Group of First Lien and Second Lien Noteholders, Ad Hoc
Group of First Lien and Second Lien Noteholders, Creditor
Committee, represented by Meritt Crosby, Kilmer Crosby & Walker
PLLC, Joshua Andrew Feltman, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz,
Brian A. Kilmer, Kilmer Crosby & Walker PLLC, Emil A. Kleinhaus,
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz & Daniel A. Rubens, Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Official Unsecured Creditors Committee, Creditor Committee,
represented by Maria A. Bove, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones
Robert Joel Feinstein, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, John A.
Morris, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP & Gabrielle A. Rohwer,
Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones.


ROYAL LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus R. Escamilla, for himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated current and former employees v. Royal
Landscape, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC662564 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 23, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide employees
with meal breaks that commenced within the first five hours of
work, and failed to pay them meal break premiums in lieu thereof.

Royal Landscape, Inc. is in the business of designing,
constructing, and maintaining landscape architectures for
commercial and residential facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justian Jusuf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF, APC
      17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
      Huntington Beach, CA 92647
      Telephone: (714) 274-9815
      Facsimile: (714)362-3148

         - and-

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Blvd.
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818)609-0892


SAFE STREETS: Faces "Collins" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SAFE STREETS USA LLC; DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03760 (C.D.
Cal., May 18, 2017), alleges that Defendant negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Defendant, SAFE STREETS USA LLC is a marketing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEPHORA USA: "Ye" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of
the settlement in the class action styled RUIQI YE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. SEPHORA USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-
05237-EMC (N.D. Cal.), and granted in part and denied in part the
related motion for fees, costs, and incentive awards.

The case is a putative class action against based on Sephora's
decision on or about Nov. 6, 2014, (i.e., during an annual sale
for "VIB" customers which gives them a 20% discount on products)
to deactivate the accounts of customers who had e-mail addresses
associated with @qq.com; @126.com; or @163.com.  The Plaintiffs
take the position that the decision to deactivate was
discriminatory, as qq.com, 126.com, and 163.com are domains based
in China and the websites are all in Chinese.  Sephora takes the
position that, inter alia, it had a nondiscriminatory motive for
its action -- i.e., that it was trying to deactivate the accounts
of resellers and/or bots.  In their operative complaint, the
Plaintiffs have asserted three claims for relief against Sephora:
(i) violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981; (ii) violation of 42
U.S.C. Section 1982; and (iii) breach of contract.

In August 2016, the Plaintiffs informed the Court that the case
had been settled (with the assistance of Judge Corley).  Several
months later, in January 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

The Court is satisfied that the class was adequately notified of
the settlement and that the means of notice comported with due
process.  Also, the reaction of the class has been positive -- in
response to the class notice, only three requests for exclusion
have been made and one objection (presenting no substantive
content).  Accordingly, the Court grants final approval of the
class action settlement.

As for the related motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and
incentive awards, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
motion.  The Court approves costs, but finds that both the
attorneys' fees and incentive awards requested are excessive.

As to fees, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' claimed lodestar
of $745,307 (based on New York hourly rates) is unreasonable, as
is their alternative lodestar of $633,511 (based on California
hourly rates).  The number of hours spent on discovery and for
pleadings and motions appears excessive, and the Plaintiffs
achieved only limited success, the Court pointed out.

The Court concludes that a fee award of $316,666 is reasonable.
That sum is approximately 33-1/3% of the gross settlement fund
(well above the 25% benchmark still) and better reflects the
limited success achieved.  The percentage method provides a fair
cross-check on the lodestar, the Court said.

As for incentive awards, the Court finds that an incentive award
of $3,000 for each named Plaintiff is adequate.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2017 order is available
at https://is.gd/P7SKsN from Leagle.com

Ruiqi Ye, Plaintiff, represented by David E. Gottlieb, Wigdor
LLP.

Ruiqi Ye, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas H. Wigdor, Wigdor
LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J. Chen, Wigdor LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeanne M. Christensen, Wigdor LLP, pro hac vice & Jamie Cameron
Couche, Anderson and Poole, P.C..

Yolin Han, Plaintiff, represented by David E. Gottlieb, Wigdor
LLP, Douglas H. Wigdor, Wigdor LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J.
Chen, Wigdor LLP, pro hac vice, Jeanne M. Christensen, Wigdor
LLP, pro hac vice & Jamie Cameron Couche, Anderson and Poole,
P.C..

Sephora USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Ralston
Livingston, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Kathryn Grzenczyk
Mantoan, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Robert Shapiro, BFKN
LLP, pro hac vice, Emily Lee Gesmundo, Barack Ferrazzano, et al.,
Joshua Wendell Mahoney, Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum and
Nagelberg LLP, pro hac vice, Krista Nicole Nelson, Barack
Ferrazzano Kirschbaum Nagelberg LLP, pro hac vice & Shermin
Kruse, Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum Nagelberg, pro hac vice.


SIGNAL FINANCE: Faces "Castros" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
NEREYDA CASTROS and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff (s), v. SIGNAL FINANCE COMPANY LLC, MIAMI FUNERAL
SERVICES & CREMATORIES, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL FUNERAL HOMES, AND
AUXILIADORA FUNERARIA NACIONAL, FIRST CUBAN FINANCIAL INC.,
HILBERT I. MOHABIR, DAYANA SOSA and ESTRELLA RODERO,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21870-KMM (S.D. Fla.,
May 18, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours during one or more weeks on or after April 12, 2014,
without being compensated minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Corporate Defendants SIGNAL FINANCE COMPANY LLC, MIAMI FUNERAL
SERVICES & CREMATORIES, INC., and FIRST CUBAN FINANCIAL INC.,
provides funeral home and crematory services.  Plaintiff's duties
included those corresponding to a receptionist, and office
attendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma., Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd.
     Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Fax: (305) 446-1502
     E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


SILVER BAY: Defending Class Suits over Tricon Merger Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp. has filed supplemental disclosures
to a definitive proxy statement, which is the focus of two
purported class action complaints filed against the Company,
among other defendants.  These litigation-related disclosures are
available in the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2017, a copy of
which can be viewed at https://is.gd/11t4RX

As disclosed on February 27, 2017, the Company, Silver Bay
Management LLC (Company GP) and Silver Bay Operating Partnership
L.P. (Company LP) (and together with the Company and Company GP,
the "Company Parties"), entered into a definitive Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Tricon Capital Group, Inc. (Ultimate Parent),
TAH Acquisition Holdings LLC (Tricon), and TAH Acquisition LP
(Parent LP) (and together with Ultimate Parent and Parent, the
"Parent Parties").  Upon the terms and subject to the conditions
set forth in the Merger Agreement, Silver Bay will merge with and
into Parent, with Tricon as the surviving entity.

In connection with the Merger, two purported class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of stockholders of the
Company.  On April 5, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Scarantino v. Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp. et al.,
0:17-cv-01066-PAM-TNL, was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota against the Company Parties,
members of the Company's board of directors and the Parent
Parties.

On April 7, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Dell'Osso v. Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp., et al., 1:17-cv-
00969-JKB was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland against the Company and members of the
Company's board of directors (Stockholder Actions".  The lawsuits
allege, among other matters, that the Company's definitive proxy
statement relating to the Merger (Definitive Proxy Statement)
contained certain material omissions.

The Company said that it believes that no supplemental
disclosures are required under applicable laws; however, to avoid
the risk of the Stockholder Actions delaying or adversely
affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending the
Stockholder Actions, and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing, the Company is making certain disclosures in its Form
8-K filing that supplement and revise those contained in the
Definitive Proxy Statement.

The litigation-related supplemental disclosures should be read in
conjunction with the Definitive Proxy Statement, which is
available http://www.sec.gov,along with periodic reports and
other information the Company files with the SEC.

The Company and the other named defendants have denied, and
continue to deny, that they have committed or assisted others in
committing any violations of law or breaches of duty to Silver
Bay stockholders, and expressly maintain that, to the extent
applicable, they complied with their fiduciary and other legal
duties and are providing the litigation-related supplemental
disclosures below solely to eliminate the burden and expense of
further litigation, to put the claims that were or could have
been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay to the
closing of the Merger that might arise from further litigation.
Nothing in the litigation-related supplemental disclosures shall
be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality
under applicable laws of any of the litigation-related
supplemental disclosures set forth herein.

To the extent that the information set forth herein differs from
or updates information contained in the Definitive Proxy
Statement, the information set forth herein shall supersede or
supplement the information in the Definitive Proxy Statement.
All page references are to pages in the Definitive Proxy
Statement, and terms used below, unless otherwise defined, have
the meanings set forth in the Definitive Proxy Statement.

Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp. acquires, renovates, leases and
manages single-family properties for rental income and long-term
capital appreciation.  It is headquartered in Plymouth,
Minnesota.


SNAP INC: Faces "Simpson" Suit Over Misleading IPO Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Simpson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Snap Inc., Evan Spiegel, Robert Murphy,
Andrew Vollero, Joanna Coles, A.G. Lafley, Mitchell Lasky,
Michael Lynton, Stanley Meresman, Scott D. Miller, Christopher
Young, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs, & Co., J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Barclays
Capital Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Allen & Company
LLC, BTIG, LLC, C.L. King & Associates, Inc., Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Connaught (UK) Limited, Cowen and Company, LLC,
Evercore Group, LLC, Jefferies LLC, JMP Securities LLC, Liontree
Advisors LLC, Luma Securities LLC, Mischler Financial Group,
Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Samuel A.
Ramirez & Co., Inc., Stifel Financial Corp., Suntrust Robinson
Humphrey, Inc., The Williams Capital Group, L.P., UBS Securities
LLC, and William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Case No. BC662444 (Cal.
Sup. Ct., May 23, 2017), alleges that the Defendants' initial
public offering contained statements that were materially false
and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose
the adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business and
operations, which were known to the Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. In particular, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose, among other things,
that: (i) the number of daily active users ("DAUs") reported by
Snap was materially false and misleading and inaccurate; and (ii)
as a result, Snap's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Snap Inc. is a camera company most popularly known for its
flagship product, Snapchat, which is a camera application that
provides users ways to communicate through short videos and
images via their mobile devices. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc G. Reich, Esq.
      Adam T. Hoover, Esq.
      REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER LLP
      4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949)975-0512
      Facsimile: (949) 975-0514
      E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com
              adhoover@reichradcliffe.com

         - and -

      Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
      LIFSHITZ & MILLER
      821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 493-9780
      Facsimile: (516)280-7376
      E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com


SPARK ENERGY: Faces "Rolland" Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spark Energy, LLC.
The case is titled as Janet Rolland, individually and on behalf
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Spark Energy, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02680-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., April 20,
2017).

Spark provides home electricity and gas services to residential
and business customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew Ross Mendelsohn, Esq.
   Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC
   103 Eisenhower Parkway
   Roseland, NJ 07068
   Tel: (973) 228-9898
   Email: mmendelsohn@mskf.net


SQUARE INC: Settlement Awaits Arbitrator's Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Square, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that after continued
negotiation, the parties in a class action lawsuit reached a
preliminary global settlement of these suits, which is subject to
final approval by the arbitrator.

The Company is involved in a class action lawsuit concerning
independent contractors in connection with the Company's Caviar
business.

On March 19, 2015, Jeffry Levin, on behalf of a putative
nationwide class, filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Caviar, Inc., which, as
amended, alleges that Caviar misclassified Mr. Levin and other
similarly situated couriers as independent contractors and, in
doing so, violated various provisions of the California Labor
Code and California Business and Professions Code by requiring
them to pay various business expenses that should have been borne
by Caviar.

The Court compelled arbitration of Mr. Levin's individual claims
on November 16, 2015 and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety
with prejudice on May 2, 2016.

On June 1, 2016, Mr. Levin filed a Notice of Appeal of the
Court's order compelling arbitration with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Levin filed his opening
appellate brief regarding the order compelling arbitration of his
individual claims on October 7, 2016.

The Company filed its answering brief on December 7, 2016, and
Mr. Levin filed his reply on December 21, 2016. No hearing date
has been set. Mr. Levin also sought an award of penalties
pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
(PAGA).

The parties stipulated that Mr. Levin would no longer pursue this
PAGA claim but that it may instead be pursued by a different
courier. Subsequently, couriers Nadezhda Rosen and La'Dell
Brewster filed a new PAGA-only claim in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco on November
7, 2016. Plaintiffs claim that Caviar misclassified its couriers
as independent contractors resulting in numerous violations of
the California Labor Code, pursuant to which plaintiffs seek
statutory penalties for those violations.

In February 2017, the Company participated in a mediation with
the parties in these Caviar misclassification suits to explore
resolution of the matters at hand. After continued negotiation,
the parties reached a preliminary global settlement of these
suits, which is subject to final approval by the arbitrator. The
Company has made appropriate accruals in the financial statements
for the immaterial amounts expected to be paid as settlement.

Square, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, Square or the
Company) is a cohesive commerce ecosystem that helps its sellers
start, run, and grow their businesses -- from managed payments
solutions to point of sale, hardware to software, loans to
payroll and more. Businesses and individuals can also use Square
Cash, an easy way to send and receive money, as well as Caviar, a
food ordering service for restaurants. Square was founded in 2009
and is headquartered in San Francisco, with offices in the United
States, Canada, Japan, Australia and the United Kingdom.


SUPERVALU INC: Class Suit on Coupon Market Conspiracy Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERVALU INC. continues to defend itself in a class action
complaint regarding alleged conspiracy of restricting the markets
for coupon processing services, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended February 25, 2017.

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

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

The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief.  All proceedings had been stayed in the case
pending the conclusion of the criminal prosecution of certain
former officers of IOS.  The final criminal trial concluded in
December 2016.

The District Court has indicated that it will release the stay of
the civil case and issue a scheduling order.  A mediation was
scheduled for May 22, 2017.

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


SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Class Lawsuit on 2003 C&S Transaction
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERVALU INC. continues to defend itself in a consolidated class
action lawsuit related to its transaction with C&S Wholesale
Grocers, Inc. in 2003, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended February 25, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On March 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a class certification
motion seeking to certify five District Court classes of
retailers in the Midwest and Supervalu filed its response on May
6, 2016.  On September 7, 2016, the District Court granted
plaintiffs' motion to certify five Midwest distribution center
classes, only one of which is suing Supervalu (the non-
arbitration Champaign distribution center class).

On March 1, 2017, the 8th Circuit denied plaintiffs' appeals
seeking to join an additional New England plaintiff and the
appeal seeking the ability to move for class certification of a
smaller New England class.  The District Court's mandatory
settlement conference set for February 14-15, 2017 was cancelled
by the court and mediation was scheduled for May 25, 2017.

The Company said, "Supervalu continues to vigorously defend this
lawsuit.  Due to the mediation, it is probable that the parties
will engage in settlement negotiations, which may result in a
settlement of the matter.  However, Supervalu cannot reasonably
estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this
matter due to the procedural status of the case and the lack of a
formal demand on Supervalu by the plaintiffs."

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


SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Computer Network Intrusion Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERVALU INC. still defends itself in a consolidated class
action in connection with criminal intrusions in its computer
network, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 25, 2017.

In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were
filed against Supervalu relating to the criminal intrusions in
its computer network announced by the Company in fiscal 2015 (the
"Criminal Intrusion").  The cases were centralized in the Federal
District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In
Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation.

On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.  Supervalu filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on
November 3, 2015.

On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that
the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met
their burden of showing any compensable damages.

On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
District Court's dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative
to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and Supervalu
filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016.

On April 20, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion
to vacate the District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to
amend the complaint.

On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit and on
May 31, 2016, Supervalu filed a cross-appeal to preserve its
additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint.

The hearing on the appeal before the 8th Circuit was set for May
10, 2017.

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


T ROWE PRICE: Potential Class Action on ERISA Breaches Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. is facing potential class action over
alleged breaches of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017.

On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price
Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former
members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe
Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland. The plaintiff is a former employee who
alleges breaches of ERISA's fiduciary duty and prohibited
transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all participants
and beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February
14, 2011, to the time of judgment. The plaintiff is seeking
certification of the complaint as a class action.

The Company stated, "T. Rowe Price believes the claims are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action."

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager.
The firm provides its services to individuals, institutional
investors, retirement plans, financial intermediaries, and
institutions.  The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group,
Inc. and T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.  The Company was founded
in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland.


TOTAL CARD: New Jersey Court Dismisses "Judah" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissed without prejudice the case caption ALI JUDAH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TOTAL CARD, INC. & JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 16-5881 (D. N.J.).

Sometime before Feb. 10, 2016, the Plaintiff incurred a debt to
Verizon Wireless and the debt was declared to be in default.  The
Plaintiff's debt was then "assigned, placed, or transferred" to
Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC.  Pinnacle "assigned, placed, or
transferred" the debt to TCI for the purposes of collection.

On Feb. 10, 2016, TCI sent the Plaintiff a letter attempting to
collect the debt, which allegedly totaled $1,649.  The Plaintiff
alleges that when TCI sent the Collection Letter, the statute of
limitations to recover the debt had expired.  The Collection
Letter explained that TCI was attempting to collect the debt on
behalf of its client, Pinnacle.

On Sept. 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
alleging a violation of Section 1692e and of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  The overarching issue is whether TCI's
Collection Letter was misleading because it failed to advise the
Plaintiff that selecting either of the two installment payment
plan options in the letter could create a new debt or contract.

TCI contends that the Collection Letter does not misrepresent the
amount of debt owed or the "legal status of the debt."  Although
the statute of limitations has expired, TCI asserts that the
Plaintiffs debt is not extinguished and TCI may still attempt to
collect the debt.  Moreover, TCI points out that the Collection
Letter specifically states that Pinnacle will not sue Judah to
collect the debt.  In addition, a partial payment pursuant to the
terms of the Collection Letter would not revive the statute of
limitations under New Jersey law, according to TCI.  TCI also
maintains that because the Collection Letter "mimics" disclosure
language approved by the Federal Trade Commission and the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the language "cannot be
deemed false, deceptive or misleading under the FDCPA."  As a
result, TCI argues that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under
Sections 1692e(2)(a) or e(10).  Finally, TCI asserts that
Plaintiffs claims under Section 1692f should be dismissed because
he fails to identify additional misconduct that is not otherwise
encompassed by a different provision of the FDCPA, namely Section
1692e. Id. at 11-12.

The Court held that the Plaintiff argues that the Collection
Letter language is deceptive because it only indicates that
Pinnacle cannot sue on the debt, not TCI; however, the Plaintiff
never explains how TCI could sue on the debt, which is a
necessary underpinning of Plaintiffs argument.  First, the
statute of limitations has run as to whomever holds the debt, the
court said.  More importantly, TCI indicated in the Collection
Letter that it was hired by Pinnacle, the owner of the debt, to
attempt to collect on the debt. However, merely being retained to
collect a debt does not convey the ownership of the debt to the
debt collector, the court pointed out.  As a result, the Court
doubts that TCI would have standing to bring suit against
Plaintiff to enforce the debt. In addition, assuming that the
Court concluded that a new partial payment contract could have
been created through the Collection Letter, Plaintiff provides no
authority indicating that Pinnacle could transfer this new
"settlement debt" to a new party for collection purposes.
Therefore, Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Section 1692e are
dismissed as Plaintiff fails to state a claim under this
subsection.

The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice to allow the
Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint.  The
Plaintiff has 30 days to file an amended complaint, if he so
chooses.  If the Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint,
the dismissal will be with prejudice.  An appropriate Order
accompanies the opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2017 opinion is available
at https://is.gd/m950Sz from Leagle.com

Ali Judah, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH K. JONES, Jones, Wolf
& Kapasi, LLC.

Ali Judah, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF, Jones,
Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.

Total Card, Inc., Defendant, represented by CONCEPCION A.
MONTOYA, HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP.


TOWN OF BROOKLINE: Faces "Baez" Suit in District Court Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Town of Brookline.
The case is titled Juana Baez, Cruz Sanabria, Rogelio Rodas,
Demetrius Oviedo, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Town of Brookline,
Massachusetts Brookline Police Commissioners, Neil Wishinsky, In
his Individual and Official Capacities, Nancy Daly, In her
Individual and Official Capacities, Ben Franco, In his Individual
and Official Capacities, Nancy Heller, In her Individual and
Official Capacities and Bernard Greene, In his Individual and
Official Capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10661-GAO (D.
Mass., April 19, 2017).

Town of Brookline Massachusetts Brookline Police Commissioners is
a government agency.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Brooks A. Ames, Esq.
   Brookline Justice League, Inc.
   1309 Beacon Street, 3rd Floor
   Brookline, MA 02446
   Tel: (617) 763-5526
   Email: brooksames1@gmail.com



UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL: Faces "Dittman" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UPMC d/b/a The
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.  The case is titled as
Barbara A. Dittman, Gary R. Douglas, Alice Pastirik, Joann
Decolati, Tina Sorrentino, Kristen Cushman and Shannon Molyneaux,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. UPMC d/b/a The University of Pittsburgh Medical
Center, and UPMC McKeesport, Defendants, Case No. 149-WAL-2017
(Pa. Sup., April 20, 2017).

The University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine educates
physicians who are science-based, skilled, and compassionate
clinicians prepared to meet the challenges of practicing medicine
in the 21st century, and educates investigators who are prepared
to conduct cutting-edge biomedical research focused on bettering
the human condition and advancing the fundamental understanding
of medical science.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TOYOTA MOTORS: Reply to "Robey" Complaint Continued to July 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL ROBEY, MOE ASGHARNIA and JAMES COMB
Individually and On Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated
Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. and
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-07212-EMC
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division, ordered that the Defendant's response to the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint will be continued from May 26,
2017, until July 10, 2017.

The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on Feb. 24,
2017.

The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on April 7, 2017,
containing significant amendments.  On May 10, 2017, pursuant to
stipulation of the parties, the Court entered an order granting
an extension of time until May 26, 2017 for the Defendant to file
a response to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

The Parties are continuing discussions to determine whether it is
feasible to resolve this matter without the need for further
litigation.  They agree that a 45-day continuance of the deadline
for the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
will facilitate the parties' settlement discussions, and result
in a more efficient expenditure of judicial resources.  The
parties have made some progress in their discussions and do not
presently believe a further continuance will be necessary.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2017 stipulation and
order is available at https://is.gd/L5d0xO from Leagle.com

Michael Robey, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Moe Asgharnia, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

James Comb, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by
Tamara Alicia Bush, Dykema Gossett LLP, Janet L. Conigliaro,
DYKEMA, pro hac vice & John Mark Thomas, Dykema Gossett PLLC.


TRC COMPANIES: Faces "Delarue" Lawsuit Over New Mountain Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA DELARUE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TRC COMPANIES, INC.,
CHRISTOPHER P. VINCZE, RICHARD H. GROGAN, JOHN A. CARRIG, F.
THOMAS CASEY, STEPHEN M. DUFF, STEPHANIE C. HILDEBRANDT, KATHLEEN
M. SHANAHAN, KEITH TRENT, DENNIS E. WELCH, NEW MOUNTAIN CAPITAL,
L.L.C., NEW MOUNTAIN PARTNERS IV, L.P., BOLT INFRASTRUCTURE
PARENT, INC., and BOLT INFRASTRUCTURE MERGER SUB, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00828 (D. Conn., May 18, 2017),
alleges that the Proxy Statement, which scheduled a stockholder
vote on the Proposed acquisition of TRC Companies, Inc. by
affiliates of New Mountain Partners IV, L.P. and New Mountain
Capital, L.L.C. for June 8, 2017, omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges
herein that defendants allegedly violated the Securities Exchange
Act.

First, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding
TRC's financial projections and the financial analyses performed
by the Company's financial advisor, Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc.,
in support of its so-called fairness opinion.

Second, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding
potential conflicts of interest of the Company's officers and
directors.

Third, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the terms of the
non-disclosure and standstill agreements executed by TRC and the
prospective bidders.

Fourth, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding
potential conflicts of interest of Houlihan.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
TRC will receive $17.55 in cash for each share of TRC common
stock.

Defendant is a national engineering, environmental consulting,
and construction management firm that provides integrated
services to the energy, environmental, and infrastructure
markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Phone: (203) 992-4523


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Shareholder Class Suits Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Treehouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Public Employees'
defendants had until May 26, 2017 to file a motion to dismiss,
plaintiffs have until June 26, 2017 to file a response, and
defendants have until July 28, 2017 to file a reply."

On November 16, 2016, a purported TreeHouse shareholder filed a
putative class action captioned Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10632, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against TreeHouse and
certain of its officers. The complaint, amended on March 24,
2017, is purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
TreeHouse common stock from January 20, 2016 through and
including November 2, 2016, asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and
costs and expenses.

On December 22, 2016, another purported TreeHouse shareholder
filed an action captioned Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016-
CH-16359, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against
TreeHouse and certain of its officers. This complaint,
purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, asserts
state law claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste.

On February 7, 2017, another purported TreeHouse shareholder
filed an action captioned Lavin v. Reed, Case No. 17-cv-01014, in
the Northern District of Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain
of its officers. This complaint, like Wells, is purportedly
brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, and it asserts state
law claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and
corporate waste.

All three complaints make substantially similar allegations
(though the amended complaint in Tarara now contains additional
detail). Essentially, the complaints allege that TreeHouse, under
the authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made
certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to
disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was
underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone business was
underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was
underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year
2016 guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable
basis. The complaints allege that these actions artificially
inflated the market price of TreeHouse common stock during the
class period, thus purportedly harming investors.

The Company said, "We believe that these claims are without merit
and intend to defend against them vigorously. Since its initial
docketing, the Tarara matter has been re-captioned as Public
Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods,
Inc., et al., in accordance with the Court's order appointing
Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi as the lead
plaintiff.  The Public Employees' defendants had until May 26,
2017 to file a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs have until June 26,
2017 to file a response, and defendants have until July 28, 2017
to file a reply."

"Additionally, due to the similarity of the complaints, the
parties in Wells have entered a stipulation deferring the
litigation until the earlier of (i) the court in Public
Employees' entering an order resolving defendants' anticipated
motion to dismiss therein or (ii) plaintiffs' counsel in Wells
receiving notification of a settlement of Public Employees' or
until otherwise agreed to by the Parties. In Lavin, the parties
are currently negotiating the terms of a similar stay.
Accordingly, the next status dates in Wells and Lavin are October
30, 2017 and August 4, 2017, respectively."

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. is a manufacturer of packaged foods and
beverages with more than 50 manufacturing facilities across the
United States, Canada, and Italy that focuses primarily on
private label products for both retail grocery and food away from
home customers.


TROPICAL FALLS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Guerra" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yunet Ibarra Guerra, on himself and all others similarly situated
v. Tropical Falls, Inc., David Bryan, and Manuel Claro, Case No.
1:17-cv-21938-JEM (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for
work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a landscape services company in
Maimi, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over False Actual Fare Description
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Gayed, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber USA LLC,
Raiser, LLC and Travis Kalanick, Case No. 1:17-cv-03139-FB-RML
(E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2017), arises out of the Defendants'
materially misleading and deceptive representations to Uber X
riders concerning the "actual fare" charged by Uber's Upfront
Pricing model.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a technology company based in
San Francisco, California, that offers a smartphone application,
the Uber App, to connect riders looking for transportation to
independent transportation providers, or drivers, looking for
riders.

Uber USA LLC is engaged in the business of providing lead
generation services to independent transportation providers in
New York City who use the Uber X software product.

Rasier, LLC is a subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc.,
headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
      GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
      217 Centre Street, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: 212-847-8315
      E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Shareholder Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the company continues
to defend against shareholder class action lawsuits.

Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., certain
of our current and former officers and directors, and the
underwriters of its initial public offering, alleging claims
under U.S. securities laws.

On January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint. On March 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting
a motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Following
the plaintiffs' decision not to file an amended complaint, on
April 16, 2014, the court ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit
with prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of the Company and
the other defendants, and against the plaintiffs.

On May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment of the court. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on
August 10, 2016. On October 24, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an
unpublished opinion, reaffirming the district court's dismissal
of the alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and reversing the district
court's dismissal of the alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933. The Company filed a petition for
rehearing with the Ninth Circuit, which the Ninth Circuit denied.

The Company plans to vigorously defend itself against these
claims; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will
prevail in the lawsuit. The Company cannot currently estimate the
possible loss, if any, that it may experience in connection with
this litigation.

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. was incorporated in the State of
California in 2003 as Pera Networks, Inc. In 2005, Pera Networks,
Inc. changed its name to Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. and commenced
its current operations. In June 2010, Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. was
re-incorporated in Delaware.  Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. and its
wholly owned subsidiaries develop high performance networking
technology for service providers and enterprises.


UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Veliz and Aguilar Sue for OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Veliz and Jason Aguilar, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. University of Southern California
and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC662567 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
23, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages and failure to provide a 30-minute
uninterrupted meal break.

University of Southern California is a private research
university in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aanand Ghods-Mehtani, Esq.
      Lisa M. Watanabe-Peagler, Esq.
      RUSHOVICH MEHTANI LLP
      5900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2600
      Los Angeles, CA 90036-5013
      Telephone: (323)433-9094
      Facsimile: (323) 395-5507
      E-mail: amehtani@rmlawpartners.com
              lwatanabe@rmlawpartners.com


UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: "Daugherty" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
WINIFRED J. DAUGHERTY, STEVEN MILLARD, and GLORIA JACKSON,
Individually and as representatives of a class of participants
and beneficiaries on behalf of the University of Chicago
Retirement Income Plan and the University of Chicago Contributory
Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs, vs. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03736 (N.D. Ill., May 18, 2017),
alleges that:

     -- instead of leveraging the Plans' substantial bargaining
power to benefit participants and beneficiaries, Defendant failed
to adequately investigate, examine, and understand the real cost
to plan participants for administrative services, thereby causing
the Plans and participant investors to pay grossly excessive and
unreasonable fees for administrative services;

     -- Defendant failed to regularly monitor all the Plans'
investment choices and for periodically reviewing and evaluating
the entire investment choice menu and retained certain investment
options for the Plans that historically and consistently
underperformed their benchmarks and charged excessive fees; and

     -- Defendant selected as the Plans' principal capital
preservation fund, an insurance company fixed-income account, the
TIAA Traditional Annuity, that prohibited participants from re-
directing their investment in the Traditional Annuity into other
investment choices during employment except in ten annual
installments.

The case alleges breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

The University of Chicago is a private, nondenominational,
coeducational research university.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     Mark R. Miller, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W. Monroe St. #3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312-346-2222
     Fax: 312-346-0022
     E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
             mrm@wexlerwallace.com

        - and -

     Michael McKay, Esq.
     John J. Nestico, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     8501 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
     Scottsdale, AZ 85253
     Phone: 480 428 0145
     Fax: 866 505 8036
     E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
             mmckay@schneiderwallace.com
             jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

        - and -

     Todd Schneider, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com

        - and -

     Todd S. Collins, Esq.
     Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
     Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
     E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
             scarson@bm.net
             enoteware@bm.net


VEREIT INC: Status Conference Held in American Realty Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2017, that a status conference before the court was scheduled
for May 16, 2017, in the case, In re American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc. Litigation.

Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and
certain of its former officers and current and former directors,
among other individuals and entities, were named as defendants in
ten securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court
consolidated these actions under the caption In re American
Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH)
(the "SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action"). The plaintiffs
filed a second amended class action complaint on December 11,
2015, which asserted claims for violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Certain defendants, including the Company
and the OP, filed motions to dismiss the second amended class
action complaint (or portions thereof), which were granted in
part and denied in part by the court at oral argument on June 1,
2016. The Company and the OP filed an answer to the second
amended class action complaint on July 29, 2016.

On September 8, 2016, the court issued an order directing
plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint to reflect certain
prior rulings by the court. The third amended complaint was filed
on September 30, 2016 and the defendants were not required to
file new answers. Document production is substantially complete.

Plaintiffs in the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action filed
a motion for class certification on March 15, 2017 and defendants
are required to respond to the motion by May 5, 2017. A status
conference before the court was scheduled for May 16, 2017.

VEREIT(R) is a Maryland corporation, incorporated on December 2,
2010, that qualified as a real estate investment trust ("REIT")
for U.S. federal income tax purposes beginning in the taxable
year ended December 31, 2011.  The Company is a full-service real
estate operating company with investment management capabilities
that operates through two reportable segments, its real estate
investment ("REI") segment and its investment management segment,
Cole Capital(R) ("Cole Capital").


VEREIT INC: Realistic Partners Case Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. and Vereit Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2017, that the case, Realistic Partners v. American Realty
Capital Partners, et al., remains pending.

In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its
board of directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New
York, captioned Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital
Partners, et al., No. 654468/2013. Cole was later added as a
defendant. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
board of the Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection
with the transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger
Agreement (in connection with the merger between a wholly owned
subsidiary of Cole and Cole Holdings Corporation) and that Cole
aided and abetted those breaches. In January 2014, the parties
entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement
of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class of the
Company's stockholders. The proposed settlement terms required
the Company to make certain additional disclosures related to the
Cole Merger, which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K
filed by the Company with the SEC on January 17, 2014. The
memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties
would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be
subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery
and court approval following notice to the Company's
stockholders, and provided that the defendants would not object
to a payment of up to $625,000 for attorneys' fees. If the
parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has not
occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will enter
into a stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any
proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be
under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding.

VEREIT(R) is a Maryland corporation, incorporated on December 2,
2010, that qualified as a real estate investment trust ("REIT")
for U.S. federal income tax purposes beginning in the taxable
year ended December 31, 2011.  The Company is a full-service real
estate operating company with investment management capabilities
that operates through two reportable segments, its real estate
investment ("REI") segment and its investment management segment,
Cole Capital(R) ("Cole Capital").


VIACOM INC: New Directors Dismissed from Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Viacom Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the court has
dismissed the New Directors from the class action lawsuit without
prejudice.

Between June 17, 2016 and August 1, 2016, three substantially
similar purported class action complaints were filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court by purported Viacom stockholders, against
Viacom and Viacom's directors at the time (the "Incumbent
Directors"), as well as National Amusements, Inc. ("National
Amusements") and NAI Entertainment Holdings LLC (together,
"NAI"), and were subsequently consolidated into one action. The
action --  brought on behalf of the class of all holders of
Viacom Class B common stock except the named defendants and any
person or entity affiliated with any of the defendants -- alleges
claims for breaches of fiduciary duty against the incumbent
director defendants and NAI, and alleges that the Viacom
directors who joined the Board of Directors subsequent to the
filing of the actions (the "New Directors") aided and abetted
these breaches. In addition to damages and attorneys' fees, the
action seeks "such relief as the Court deems just and proper."
All defendants, including Viacom and the Incumbent Directors,
have moved to dismiss the action. The plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint in November 2016, and we again moved to
dismiss the action.

In March 2017, plaintiffs and the New Directors petitioned the
court to dismiss the New Directors from the lawsuit, and the
court dismissed the New Directors from the lawsuit without
prejudice.

Viacom is home to premier global media brands that create
compelling television programs, motion pictures, short-form
content, applications ("apps"), games, consumer products, social
media experiences and other entertainment content for audiences
in more than 180 countries. Viacom operates through two reporting
segments: Media Networks and Filmed Entertainment.


VISA INC: Settlement Reached in Merchant Class Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017 that it entered into an agreement in principle on
March 8, 2017 with merchant class plaintiffs to settle, on a
national basis, the active class actions filed in Quebec, British
Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

The settlement remains subject to execution of a final settlement
agreement and court approval.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide.
The Company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value
and information among consumers, merchants, financial
institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government
entities.  It has a strategic partnership agreement with Oman
Arab Bank to convert the bank's current electron cards to chip-
and-PIN debit cards.  Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.


VISA INC: Proceedings on EMV Chip Liability Shift Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. continues to defend itself in a legal action involving
EMV chip liability shift, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017.

On March 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

On March 20, 2017, Visa and MasterCard filed a motion to transfer
the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, or, in the alternative, to stay the action.  The motion
is pending.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide.
The Company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value
and information among consumers, merchants, financial
institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government
entities.  It has a strategic partnership agreement with Oman
Arab Bank to convert the bank's current electron cards to chip-
and-PIN debit cards.  Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WARSAW (IN.) COMMUNITY: Williams Seeks Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Williams moves to certify his case captioned DAVID
WILLIAMS, Individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
v. WARSAW (IN.) COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, DAVID HOFFERT,
Individually, BRANDON PENROD, Individually, JAMIE CORSON,
Individually, and CHERYL COOK, Individually, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00181-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), as a class action and to have his
counsel appointed as class counsel.

On April 25, 2017, the complaint was filed alleging the Warsaw
Community School Corporation and its agents violates and has
violated for at least the past three years, the Fair Labor
Standards Act by not paying the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated persons for "time worked" and for overtime after their
40th hour of work in a week.

The class Williams seeks to represent consists of:

     All persons currently or formerly employed as school bus
     drivers from April, 2014, to the present who were not paid
     for "hours worked" and/or "overtime" as defined by the Fair
     Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LOkuD7Ji

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          THE LAW OFFICE OF LOREN K. ALLISON
          Loren K. Allison, Esq.
          1214 Park Ave.
          Fort Wayne, IN 46807
          Telephone: (260) 466-5205
          E-mail: info@lkallison.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher T. Pottratz, Esq.
          Randall G. Hesser, Esq.
          WARRICK & BOYN, LLP
          121 W. Franklin Street, Suite 400
          Elkhart, IN 46516-3278
          Telephone: (574) 294-7491
          Facsimile: (574) 294-7284
          E-mail: cpottratz@warrickandboyn.com
                  rhesser@warrickandboyn.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: To Finish Consumer Claims Process in 2017
---------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that the administrative consumer claims
process in relation to the settlement of class action suits is
expected to be completed this year.

The Company said, "We have vigorously defended against numerous
lawsuits pending in the United States relating to certain of our
front load washing machines.  In 2016, we reached final agreement
on a settlement that will resolve all such class action lawsuits
(except for attorneys fee in an immaterial case) and received
court approval. We are proceeding through the administrative
consumer claims process to implement the terms of the settlement,
which will be complete in 2017."

Whirlpool Corporation manufactures and markets home appliances
and related products worldwide.  The Company's principal products
include laundry appliances, refrigerators and freezers, cooking
appliances, dishwashers, mixers, and other small domestic
appliances.  Whirlpool Corporation sells its products to
retailers, distributors, dealers, builders, and other
manufacturers.  The Company was founded in 1898 and is
headquartered in Benton Harbor, Michigan.


WOOD GROUP: Fenley Moves for Certification of 3 Workers Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned TOMMY L. FENLEY, WILLIAM
PEVETO, BROCKROBERT TAGAROOK and LEWIS WHITMIRE, individually and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. WOOD GROUP
MUSTANG, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-00326-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), ask
the Court to certify these classes under the Ohio Fair Minimum
Wage Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law:

   * All current and former employees of [WGM] who were
     classified with the paycode "DAY - Non Exempt Day Rate," and
     who worked in WGM's Pipeline Services Inspection Department
     as an inspector (or an equivalent position) in Ohio in any
     workweek between the applicable limitations period
     (January 26, 2013 for Counts II and III, and January 26,
     2011 for Count IV) and the present" ("The Ohio Class");

   * All current and former employees of [WGM] who were
     classified with the paycode "DAY - Non Exempt Day Rate," and
     who worked in WGM's Pipeline Services Inspection Department
     as an inspector (or an equivalent position) in Pennsylvania
     in any workweek between the applicable limitations period
     (November 21, 2013 for Count VIII and November 21, 2012 for
     Count IX) and the present" ("The Pennsylvania Class"); and

   * All current and former employees of [WGM] who were
     classified with the paycode "DAY - Non Exempt Day Rate," and
     who worked in WGM's Pipeline Services Inspection Department
     as an inspector (or an equivalent position) in Illinois in
     any workweek between the applicable limitations period
     (November 21, 2013 for Counts V and VI, and November 21,
     2011 for Count VII) and the present" ("The Illinois Class").

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BIQ0uMsm

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  apiazza@bm.net

               - and -

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          Drew Legando, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
                  drew@lgmlegal.com




WORLD GYM: Kim Sues Over Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lovene Kim, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. World Gym International, LLC and Does 1 through 100,
Case No. BC662568 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 23, 2017), alleges that
the Defendants repeatedly made unauthorized electronic transfer of
funds from the Plaintiffs and Class members' accounts and failed
to return the unlawfully obtained money.

World Gym International, LLC operates a fitness center company
located at 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California, 90067. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
      Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq.
      NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
      707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3600
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 622-6469
      Facsimile: (213) 622-6019
      E-mail: gnelson@nflawfirm.com
              gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com

         - and -

      Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
      Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 440-0020
      Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
      E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
              nick@attorneyzim.com


WPX ENERGY: 2nd Motion for Class Certification Pending
------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that plaintiffs' second
motion for class certification in the Royalty litigation
remains pending.

The Company said, "In October 2011, a potential class of royalty
interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint
against us in the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint
presently alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including
drip condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, fraudulent concealment, conversion, misstatement of the
value of gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market
hydrocarbons in Colorado, breach of implied duty to market,
violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and
bad faith breach of contract. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages
and a declaratory judgment enjoining activities relating to
production, payments and future reporting. This matter was removed
to the United States District Court for New Mexico where the court
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification."

"In March 2017, plaintiffs appealed the denial of class
certification to the Tenth Circuit.

"In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against
us in the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado.
Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both
in Colorado and New Mexico and violation of the New Mexico Oil and
Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and seek declaratory judgment,
accounting and injunctive relief.

"On August 16, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. On September 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed their
motion for reconsideration and filed a second motion for class
certification, and the Court held a hearing on that motion on
January 24, 2017 but has not yet ruled.

"At this time, we believe that our royalty calculations have been
properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual
arrangements and applicable laws. We do not have sufficient
information to calculate an estimated range of exposure related to
these claims."


YIRENDAI LTD: Still Defends ADS Consolidated Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Yirendai Ltd. still defends itself in a consolidated class action
case related to its American depositary shares, according to the
Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company and certain of its officers were named as defendants
in two putative securities class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly
suffered damages as a result of their trading in our ADSs between
May 11, 2016 and August 24, 2016: Lefter v. Yirendai Ltd. et al.,
Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-06437-MFW-AGR (C.D. Cal.) and Roh v.
Yirendai Ltd. et al., Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-06506-MFW-AGR (C.D.
Cal.).

The action alleges that the Company's public press releases dated
May 11, 2016 and August 9, 2016 contained misstatements or
omissions relating to the Company experiencing an increasing
amount of fraud related to customer application for loans and the
potential negative impact that the Chinese government's
implementation of new anti-fraud regulations could have on the
Company's business.

On November 29, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the
cases and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the
consolidated case.

On January 27, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed their first amended
complaint.

On March 28, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint.  The action remains at its preliminary stages.

The Company said, "We believe the case is without merit and intend
to defend the actions vigorously."

Yirendai Ltd. operates as an online consumer finance marketplace
that connects borrowers and investors primarily in the People's
Republic of China.  It offers standard and fasttrack loan
products.  The Company also provides investing tools.  The Company
was founded in 2012 and is based in Beijing, the People's Republic
of China.  Yirendai Ltd. is a subsidiary of Creditease Holdings
(Cayman) Limited.


ZAGG INC: Stotz-Charles Suit v. mophie Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Zagg Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is defending against the
case, Eric Stotz and Alan Charles v. mophie inc., U.S. District
Court, Central District of California, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-
08898-GW-FFM.

On January 13, 2017, Eric Stotz and Alan Charles, individually and
on behalf of a purported class, filed a first amended class action
complaint alleging that they purchased certain external battery
packs and that the battery packs did not extend the life of the
phones' internal batteries as advertised and adversely affected
the phones' internal battery life. Plaintiffs allege violations of
California's unfair competition law, California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, New York's unlawful deceptive acts and practices
statute, and New York's false advertising law.

The Company has denied all liability and will defend the claims
and otherwise respond to the allegations. This matter is not
expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.

ZAGG(R) Inc and its subsidiaries are innovation leaders in mobile
tech accessories for smartphones and tablets. For over 10 years,
ZAGG has developed creative product solutions that enhance and
protect mobile devices for consumers around the world. The Company
has an award-winning product portfolio that includes screen
protection, power cases, power management, personal audio, mobile
keyboards, and cases sold under the ZAGG, InvisibleShield(R),
mophie(R), and IFROGZ(R) brands.


                         *********


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  * * *