CAR_Public/170613.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Tuesday, June 13, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 117



                            Headlines

AAC HOLDINGS: Still Defends "Kasper" and "Tenzyk" Suit
ACCESS MIDSTREAM: Faces "Flanagan" Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
AECOM ENERGY: "Shelton" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA
ALLY FINANCIAL: Securities Litigation Pending in E.D. Michigan
AKORN INC: Securities Litigation in Discovery Phase

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Appeal Related to Starr Suit Underway
ASANKO GOLD: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
ATLANTA RESTAURANT: Faces "Robinson" Wage-and-Hour Suit
AUSTRALIA: 51 Rangeview Estate Homeowners File Case vs. VBA
BLOOMINGDALE'S: Fails to Pay Unpaid Wages, "Makarios" Suit Says

BLUE CROSS: Seeks Transfer of "Cates" to Cook County
BLUE HILL: Settles Wage Theft Class Action for $2 Million
C. R. BARD: "Tanguma" Suit Challenges Becton Dickinson Merger
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Suit over Trust Indenture Act Ends
CANADA: Findlay McCarthy Used Caledonia Settlement Funds

CANADA: Court OKs RCMP Sexual Harassment Class Action Settlement
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Sued for Misleading Students on Accreditation
CHINA AGRITECH: Statute of Limitations Applicable to Class Action
CIGNA CORPORATION: Faces "Crowder" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces "Fleming" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

COMMUNITY INSURANCE: "Berg" Suit Alleges Parity Act Violation
CONSTRUCTIVE HOMES: Faces "Azevedo" Suit in New York Sup. Court
CPI CARD: Discovery Stayed in Securities Litigation
DEVILLE ASSET: "Caceres" Suit Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
DE VILLE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Falbo" Action Claims

DEVRY EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss Pension Trust Suit Pending
DEVRY EDUCATION: Bid to Dismiss Robinson and Brown Suit Pending
DEVRY EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss "Petrizzo" Suit Pending
DIRECT MERCHANTS: Milosch Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
DIVERSANT: Sued Over Failure to Provide Copy of Consumer Report

DYNAMEX INC: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Vivlamore" Suit Claims
E.I. DU PONT: Faces "Cook" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
ELITE MODEL: Judge Drops State Labor Claims in Class Action
FAIRVIEW HEALTH: Gets Favorable Ruling in Robocall Class Action
FEDEX OFFICE: "Johnson" Suit Moved to N.D. California

FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Estimates $9MM Settlement Cost in "Cressy"
FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Bid for Supreme Court Review Due by July 12
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Faces "Taylor" Suit over Background Checks
FIRST NATIONAL: Faces "Pacheco" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
FIRST STUDENT: "Peck" Suit Moved to District of Oregon

FIVE GUYS: "Lusk" Suit Moved from Sup. Ct. to E.D. California
FMA ALLIANCE: "Quinn" Suit Sues over Automatic Telephone Dialing
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Powershift Transmission
FOREST CITY: Class Suit over Reclassification Agreement Pending
FUYAO GLASS: "Staggs" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under FLSA

GRUBHUB INC: Seeks Dismissal of TCPA Class Action in Illinois
GRUMPY GROUPER: "Worley" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Faces Child Protection Class Action
HISPANIC HOUSING: Faces "Hill" Suit Over Security Deposit Policy
HSBC FINANCE: Dropped as Defendant in "Monteleone" TCPA Suit

INOVALON HOLDINGS: Pre-Motion Process Pending in Class Suit
INTEC COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Silva" Suit Says
INTRAWEST RESORTS: Sued Over Proposed Hawk Holding Merger
JB MEDICAL: "Schwanke" Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
JIVE SOFTWARE: Gusinsky Trust Challenges Wave Systems Merger

JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
KATE SPADE: "Steinberg" Suit Challenges Coach Merger
KC LODGE: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, "Enegren" Suit Says
KCG HOLDINGS: Faces "Greenway" Suit Over Orchestra Merger
KEMPER SPORTS: Faces "Lall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

KEYSTONE CUSTOM: Faces Jaspen Suit in Penn. Ct. of Common Pleas
LA QUINTA: Motion to Dismiss "Beisel" Class Action Underway
LDRV HOLDINGS: "Slanga" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Must Face Investors' Securities Class Action
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Cost of Insurance Litigation Pending

MARKET AMERICA: Faces Racketeering Class Action
MDL 2179: Cases v. Ecolab over Deepwater Oil Spill Still Pending
MDL 2566: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Suit
MDL 2724: Fraternal Order Class Suit Consolidated in MDL
MDL 2787: Herlihy et al. Ask Panel to Transfer Related Actions

MONSANTO: Wants Cancer Class Action to Remain in Federal Court
MOVE SALES: Faces "Diresta" Class Suit in New York
NASTYGAL.COM: Faces "Bashen" Suit Over False Product Statements
NEXVET BIOPHARMA: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Zoetis Merger Proxy
NIGHTCAP INC: "Salvo" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA

NOW HEALTH: Faces "Maniaci" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
PEKELL DELAIRE: Appeals Ct. Clarifies Authority to Settle Suits
PETROSSIAN RESTAURANTS: "Shabu" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay Under FLSA
PIERCE MANUFACTURING: Judge Approves "Ehmann" Class Settlement
PINNACLE CREDIT: Faces "Ward" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York

POF INC: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
POTESTIVO & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Ayers" Suit in W.D. Michigan
PREFERRED EXTERIOR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ordonez Says
PREMIER DERMATOLOGY: Smiths Sue Over Unsolicited Text Messages
RCI PLUMBING: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

RHB MANAGEMENT: Quimby Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
REWALK ROBOTICS: Class Action Case Dismissed
REWALK ROBOTICS: Massachusetts State Court Action Pending
REWALK ROBOTICS: Massachusetts Federal Court Action Pending
SAHARA DREAMS: Faces "Kwan" Suit Under FLSA, New York Labor Laws

SERES THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 9 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Mazurek"
SERVICE LOAN: Faces "Hamilton" Suit in Georgia State Court
SPROUTS FARMERS: Appeals Order to Remand Securities Action
STREAM ENERGY: Plaintiffs Obtain Favorable Ruling in Fraud Case
SURFSTITCH: Shareholder Class Action Proceedings Put on Ice

SWH MIMI'S: Faces "Nunez" Wage-and-Hour Suit
TARGET: 8th Cir. Rejects Lone Objector's Class-Conflict Arguments
TD BANK: "Dorsey" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to D. South Carolina
TOTAL SYSTEM: $6.5MM Settlement in "Heidarpour" Case Has Final OK
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Grisanzio" Suit Moved to E.D. New York
U.S. BANCORP: Elswick Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Lebovic" Suit in E.D. New York
UNITED STATES: Faces Kane County Suit in Federal Claims Court
UNITED VAN: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, "Dennis" Suit Claims

VITAMIN COTTAGE: Davis, et al. Allege FLSA, Col. Law Violations
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Artola, et al. Sue Over Defective Audi Vehicles
WAL-MART STORES: "Kenny" Suit Moved to C.D. California
ZILLOW GROUP: Expects to Make Settlement Payments During 2017
ZILLOW GROUP: $6MM "Freeman" Case Settlement Has Initial Court OK

* Class Actions Surge Under NJ's Consumer Protection Laws
* U.S. Marketers Brace for Canada Anti-Spam Law Lawsuits



                            *********


AAC HOLDINGS: Still Defends "Kasper" and "Tenzyk" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
AAC Holdings, Inc. continues to defend the consolidated "Kasper"
and "Tenzyk" class action lawsuit, the company 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 August 24, 2015, a shareholder filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers (Kasper v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.). The
plaintiff generally alleges that the Company and certain of its
current and former officers 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
and failing to disclose certain information.

On September 14, 2015, a second class action against the same
defendants asserting essentially the same allegations was filed in
the same court (Tenzyk v. AAC Holdings, Inc. et al.).

On October 26, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating
these two described actions into one action.

On April 14, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

On July 1, 2016, the court denied the motion to dismiss.

In a related matter, on November 28, 2015, a shareholder filed a
derivative action on behalf of AAC Holdings, Inc. in the Eighth
Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada (Bushansky v.
Jerrod N. Menz et al.) against AAC Holding's board of directors
and certain of its officers alleging that these directors and
officers breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in
mismanagement and illegal conduct.  On January 19, 2016, the Court
entered an Order staying this litigation pending the earlier of
the close of discovery in the related securities class action
pending in Tennessee or the deadline for appealing any dismissal
of the securities class action.

The Company is vigorously defending these actions.  At this time,
the Company cannot predict the results of litigation with
certainty.  However, it is reasonably possible that the Company
may incur a loss in connection with these matters. The Company is
unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of any such loss
given that the matter is still in the early stages of discovery.
Any loss incurred in connection with adverse outcomes in these
matters could be material.

AAC Holdings is a provider of inpatient and outpatient substance
abuse treatment services for individuals with drug and alcohol
addiction.


ACCESS MIDSTREAM: Faces "Flanagan" Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Access Midstream
Partners, L.P. The case is captioned as Teri Flanagan, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Access Midstream Partners, L.P., now known as Williams Partners,
L.P.; Chesapeake Energy Corporation; Chesapeake Operating L.L.C.;
Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C.; Chesapeake Energy Marketing Inc.;
Chesapeake Midstream Partners, LP; and Total E&P USA, Inc., Case
No. 4:17-cv-00315-JED-mjx (N.D. Okla., June 2, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge John E. Dowdell.

Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Access Midstream is the industry's
largest independent gathering and processing master limited
partnership.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Robert Burton, IV, Esq.
          Burton Law Firm PC
          15 E 5TH ST STE 4022
          TULSA, OK 74103-4347
          Telephone: (918) 607 4891
          E-mail: RobtBurton@aol.com

               - and -

          Donald H Ray, Esq.
          RAY & WILSON
          6300 Ridglea Pl Ste 1111
          Fort Worth, TX 76116
          Telephone: (817) 377 0500
          Facsimile: (817) 377 1232

               - and -

          J. Jeffrey Springer, Esq.
          SPRINGER & LYLE LLP
          1807 WESTMINSTER
          DENTON, TX 76205
          Telephone: (940) 387 0404
          Facsimile: (940) 383 7656

               - and -

          Rex A Sharp, Esq.
          REX A SHARPE PA
          5301 W 75th St.
          Praire Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901 0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901 0419


AECOM ENERGY: "Shelton" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER SHELTON, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Persons, the Plaintiff, v. AECOM ENERGY & CONSTRUCTION,
INC. f/k/a URS ENERGY & CONSTRUCTION, INC. and SYSTEM ONE
HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a PENNSYLVANIA SYSTEM ONE HOLDINGS, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01669 (S.D. Tex., June 2, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants as
a Quality Assurance Inspector/Engineer from May of 2014 until
August of 2015. The Plaintiff's duties include, but were not
limited to, overseeing the quality control of construction
projects at job sites, reporting quality issues and performance,
verify contractors' certifications, job qualifications and tasks
completions. Plaintiff was paid on an hourly rate basis, but was,
until recently, not paid premium pay for hours worked over 40.

URS Energy provides design, engineering, construction, facilities
and operations management, environmental remediation, and mining
services to public and private sector clients in the United States
and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: 713 868 3388
          Facsimile: 713 683 9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  vijay@buenkerlaw.com


ALLY FINANCIAL: Securities Litigation Pending in E.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ally Financial 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 securities litigation in the Eastern District of
Michigan.

In October 2016, a purported class action -- Bucks County
Employees Retirement Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was
filed in the Circuit Court for Wayne County in the State of
Michigan. This matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan on November 18, 2016, and is
currently pending there as Case No. 2:16-CV-14104.

The complaint alleges material misstatements and omissions in
connection with Ally's initial public offering in April 2014,
including a failure to adequately disclose the severity of rising
subprime automotive loan delinquency rates, deficient underwriting
measures employed in the origination of subprime automotive loans,
and aggressive tactics used with low-income borrowers. The request
for relief includes an indeterminate amount of damages, fees, and
costs and other remedies.

In January 2017, another purported class action -- National
Shopmen Pension Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in
the Circuit Court for Oakland County in the State of Michigan.
This matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan on January 30, 2017, and is currently pending
there as Case No. 2:17-CV-10289.

In March 2017, a third purported class action -- James McIntire v.
Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in the Circuit Court for
Wayne County in the State of Michigan. This matter was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
March 15, 2017, and is currently pending there as Case No. 2:17-
CV-10833.

The allegations and requested relief in the National Shopmen
Pension Fund and James McIntire complaints are substantially
similar to those included in the complaint filed by Bucks County
Employees Retirement Fund.

"We intend to vigorously defend against each of these actions,"
the Company said.

Ally Financial Inc. is a digital financial services company
offering diversified financial products for consumers, businesses,
automotive dealers and corporate clients.


AKORN INC: Securities Litigation in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------
Akorn, 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 case, In re Akorn, Inc. Securities
Litigation, is in the discovery phase, and no trial date has been
scheduled.

On March 4, 2015, a purported class action complaint was filed
entitled Yeung v. Akorn, Inc., et al., in the federal district
court of Northern District of Illinois, No. 15-cv-1944.  The
complaint alleged that the Company and three of its officers
violated the federal securities laws in connection with matters
related to its accounting and financial reporting in the wake of
its acquisitions of Hi-Tech Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. and
VersaPharm, Inc.

A second, related case entitled Sarzynski v. Akorn, Inc., et al.,
No. 15-cv-3921, was filed on May 4, 2015 making similar
allegations.

On August 24, 2015, the two cases were consolidated and a lead
plaintiff appointed in In re Akorn, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On July 5, 2016, the lead plaintiff group filed a consolidated
amended complaint making similar allegations against the Company
and an officer and former officer of the Company. The consolidated
amended complaint seeks damages on behalf of the putative class.

On August 9, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case. On March 6, 2017, the court denied the motion to dismiss and
the defendants subsequently filed an answer to the consolidated
amended complaint on March 27, 2017. The case is now in the
discovery phase, and no trial date has been scheduled.

Akorn, Inc., together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries is a
specialty generic pharmaceutical company that develops,
manufactures and markets generic and branded prescription
pharmaceuticals, branded as well as private-label over-the-counter
consumer health products and animal health pharmaceuticals.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Appeal Related to Starr Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, 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
related to the Starr International Litigation remains pending.

On November 21, 2011, Starr International Company, Inc. (SICO)
filed a complaint against the United States in the United States
Court of Federal Claims (the Court of Federal Claims), bringing
claims, both individually and on behalf of the classes defined
below and derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO Treasury
Action). The complaint challenges the government's assistance of
AIG, pursuant to which AIG entered into a credit facility with the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the FRBNY, and such credit
facility, the FRBNY Credit Facility) and the United States
received an approximately 80 percent ownership in AIG. The
complaint alleges that the interest rate imposed on AIG and the
appropriation of approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity was
discriminatory, unprecedented, and inconsistent with liquidity
assistance offered by the government to other comparable firms at
the time and violated the Equal Protection, Due Process, and
Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

In the SICO Treasury Action, the only claims naming AIG as a party
(as a nominal defendant) are derivative claims on behalf of AIG.
On September 21, 2012, SICO made a pre-litigation demand on our
Board demanding that we pursue the derivative claims or allow SICO
to pursue the claims on our behalf. On January 9, 2013, our Board
unanimously refused SICO's demand in its entirety and on January
23, 2013, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel for SICO
describing the process by which our Board considered and refused
SICO's demand and stating the reasons for our Board's
determination.

On March 11, 2013, SICO filed a second amended complaint in the
SICO Treasury Action alleging that its demand was wrongfully
refused. On June 26, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims granted
AIG's and the United States' motions to dismiss SICO's derivative
claims in the SICO Treasury Action due to our Board's refusal of
SICO's demand and denied the United States' motion to dismiss
SICO's direct, non-derivative claims.

On March 11, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims in the SICO
Treasury Action granted SICO's motion for class certification of
two classes with respect to SICO's non-derivative claims: (1)
persons and entities who held shares of AIG Common Stock on or
before September 16, 2008 and who owned those shares on September
22, 2008 (the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class); and (2) persons
and entities who owned shares of AIG Common Stock on June 30, 2009
and were eligible to vote those shares at AIG's June 30, 2009
annual meeting of shareholders (the Reverse Stock Split
Shareholder Class). SICO has provided notice of class
certification to potential members of the classes, who, pursuant
to a court order issued on April 25, 2013, had to return opt-in
consent forms by September 16, 2013 to participate in either
class. 286,908 holders of AIG Common Stock during the two class
periods have opted into the classes.

On June 15, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims issued its opinion
and order in the SICO Treasury Action.  The Court found that the
United States exceeded its statutory authority by exacting
approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity in exchange for the FRBNY
Credit Facility, but that AIG shareholders suffered no damages as
a result.  SICO argued during trial that the two classes are
entitled to a total of approximately $40 billion in damages, plus
interest. The Court also found that the United States was not
liable to the Reverse Stock Split Class in connection with the
reverse stock split vote at the June 30, 2009 annual meeting of
shareholders.

On June 17, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims entered judgment
stating that "the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class shall prevail
on liability due to the Government's illegal exaction, but shall
recover zero damages, and that the Reverse Stock Split Shareholder
Class shall not prevail on liability or damages."  SICO filed a
notice of appeal of the July 2, 2012 dismissal of SICO's
unconstitutional conditions claim, the June 26, 2013 dismissal of
SICO's derivative claims, the Court's June 15, 2015 opinion and
order, and the Court's June 17, 2015 judgment to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The United States filed
a notice of cross appeal of the Court's July 2, 2012 opinion and
order denying in part its motion to dismiss, the Court's June 26,
2013 opinion and order denying its motion to dismiss SICO's direct
claims, the Court's June 15, 2015 opinion and order, and the
Court's June 17, 2015 judgment to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On August 25, 2015, SICO filed its appellate brief, in which it
stated SICO does not appeal the dismissal of the derivative claims
it asserted on behalf of AIG.

In the Court of Federal Claims, the United States has alleged, as
an affirmative defense in its answer, that AIG is obligated to
indemnify the FRBNY and its representatives, including the Federal
Reserve Board of Governors and the United States (as the FRBNY's
principal), for any recovery in the SICO Treasury Action.

AIG believes that any indemnification obligation would arise only
if: (a) SICO prevails on its appeal and ultimately receives an
award of damages; (b) the United States then commences an action
against AIG seeking indemnification; and (c) the United States is
successful in such an action through any appellate process. If
SICO prevails on its claims and the United States seeks
indemnification from AIG, AIG intends to assert defenses thereto.

A reversal of the Court of Federal Claim's June 17, 2015 decision
and judgment and a final determination that the United States is
liable for damages, together with a final determination that AIG
is obligated to indemnify the United States for any such damages,
could have a material adverse effect on its business, consolidated
financial condition and results of operations.


ASANKO GOLD: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 31
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Asanko Gold Inc. (NYSE:AKG) from
October 24, 2014 through May 31, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Asanko Gold
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Asanko Gold class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1139.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Asanko Gold's Mineral Resource Estimates are flawed; (2)
some of Asanko Gold's resources models exhibit signs that they
have been "smeared," which would cause estimates of their ore
contents to be inflated; and (3) as a result, Asanko Gold's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On June 30, 2016, hedge fund K2 & Associates published a report
asserting, among other things that Asanko Gold's gold resources
"don't add up" and appear to be over-inflated by a factor of two.
On this news, shares of Asanko Gold fell $0.15 per share or over
3% to close at $3.81 per share on June 30, 2016, damaging
investors.  On May 31, 2017, research firm Muddy Waters published
a report asserting, among other things, that: (1) Asanko Gold made
investments based on flawed geology in Nkran, its satellite pits
and Esaase that Muddy Waters believes "will never be recovered";
and (2) there are indicia that some of Asanko Gold's resources
models have been "smeared", which would cause estimates of their
ore contents to be inflated. On this news, shares of Asanko Gold
fell $0.58 per share or over 31% to $1.29 per share during
intraday trading on May 31, 2017 and were halted, further damaging
investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 31, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1139.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has been ranked #2 in the nation by
Institutional Shareholder Services for the number of securities
class action settlements annually obtained for investors. [GN]


ATLANTA RESTAURANT: Faces "Robinson" Wage-and-Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
JESSE JOHN ASTE-POWELL and MICHAEL TREMAYNE ROBINSON, individuals,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. ATLANTA RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, and DOES 1 thru
50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.BC663957 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 2, 2017), seeks penalties for Defendants' violation of the
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant issued Plaintiff and all
aggrieved employees paychecks of more than 7 calendar. Thus,
Plaintiff is an aggrieved employee within the meaning of Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act.

Atlanta Restaurant is doing business in the food industry. The
Company specializes in the sale of food and beverage
concessionaires.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990 8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsley.com


AUSTRALIA: 51 Rangeview Estate Homeowners File Case vs. VBA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Shanahan, writing for Diamond Valley Leader, reports that
a class action has been launched against the state's peak building
authority, accused of failing to protect homeowners who fell
victim to shonky builders.

Solicitor Sarah Hinchliffe, on behalf of 51 Rangeview Estate
homeowners in Diamond Creek, has launched a class action against
the Victorian Building Authority in the Supreme Court.

The VBA was served the documents on June 1, almost two years after
the Diamond Valley Leader first shone a light on the issue.

Ms Hinchliffe will argue the VBA, who are by law required to
regulate, oversee and implement the building act, have failed to
do so.

Timothy Cox at his Rangeview Estate home in Diamond Creek.
"They need to ensure they practice what they preach ... and take
up the roles they have been given," she told Leader.

"These homeowners have been hard done by . . . they've had
breakdowns, marital breakdowns, deaths.  I think they deserve
their voice to be heard."

Ms Hinchliffe was prompted to take on the case after her father
died when she was just 15 from the stresses of a "building
matter".

Although the VBA has never had a class action levelled against it,
Ms Hinchliffe is confident about the homeowners' prospects.

"I'm aware it's a big undertaking for anyone to take this (case)
on but it's the reason I went into law," she said.

VBA spokesman Craig Little said the authority would defend the
case in the Supreme Court.

"The municipal council's building surveyors and the VBA all have
duties to discharge within Victoria's regulatory framework, and
the VBA maintains that in this matter we have carried out our
statutory responsibilities," Mr Little said.

"This included investigating the conduct of the builder, which
subsequently led to the cancellation of his registration in 2016."

Mr Little said building surveyor Peter Eyres is currently under
investigation by the VBA's practitioner disciplinary unit.

Builders Collective of Australia president Phil Dwyer, who was a
builder for 40 years, said the VBA has turned the industry into a
"laughing stock".

Mr Dwyer wants a statutory fund made available to compensate
victims of shonky work on a first resort basis, all trades to be
registered and the establishment of a proactive regulator, unlike
the VBA.

"The VBA's conduct has been shameful and the class action will
demonstrate how incompetent they have been," Mr Dwyer said.

"They need to be proactive, not reactive and wait to put out the
spot fires after.

"It's time this whole mess is fixed up."

The VBA is expected to respond to the class action before a court
date will be set in the Victorian Supreme Court.

ROAD TO JUSTICE

The Diamond Valley Leader's two-year investigation into the
Rangeview Estate debacle.

2015:

JULY 6

Leader revealed the raft of building defects inside the $400,000
homes, which included electrical faults, an unfinished fire
separation wall, wonky rooflines and flooding.

JULY 29

The Victorian Building Authority (VBA) referred the investigation
into builder David Brayer to the Builders Practitioners Board.

AUGUST 5

Retired master builder Lyell Dunn claimed the VBA's predecessor --
Victorian Building Commission -- ignored his warning about serious
building defects in Diamond Creek's Rangeview Estate.

AUGUST 26

Reddo Building Surveyors director Peter Eyers, whose company was
Rangeview Estate's private building surveyor, said the houses were
safe to live in.

The VBA, Nillumbik Shire Council and Reddo also argued over the
responsibility for fixing defects within the estate.

SEPTEMBER 9

The VBA enacted section 205M of the Building Act (1993), calling
on Reddo to revisit the properties that have been dogged by
construction faults.

SEPTEMBER 23

The VBA awaits Reddo's response to the section 205M of the
Building Act (1993).

OCTOBER 28

The VBA considers referring Reddo to the Building Practitioners
Board if it does not comply with an order to revisit Rangeview
Estate and address the issues.

DECEMBER 2

Municipal Association Victoria president Bill McArthur called for
the Victorian building system to be overhauled after Nillumbik
Council's municipal building surveyor was asked to pick up the
pieces by the VBA. Councillors unanimously declined the VBA's
offer during a council meeting.

DECEMBER 16

The Building Practitioners Board will be abolished in drastic new
changes to Victoria's $28 billion building industry.

2016:

JANUARY 20


Planning Minister Richard Wynne forced Nillumbik Council to
rectify the trail of destruction left behind at the development.

FEBRUARY 10

The Building Practitioners Board found builder David Brayer guilty
of breaching professional standards and he was slapped with three
fines totalling $45,501, ordered to pay more than $19,300 in costs
and banned from operating as a registered builder for a minimum of
three years.

FEBRUARY 24

Independent senator John Madigan wrote to Victroian Premier Daniel
Andrews asking for the domestic building insurance scheme to be
overhauled.

JUNE 22

Builder David Brayer, who left families with hundreds of thousands
of dollars in repair bills, had his hearing costs fee for the
Building Practitioners Board waived by VCAT, after they took into
account his financial situation.

OCTOBER 26

Scullin federal Labor MP Andrew Giles set to meet with planning
minister Richard Wynne to discuss Victorian building industry
reforms.

2017:

APRIL 19

Homeowners call on Premier Daniel Andrews to investigate the VBA.
They said they were "sick and tired" of dealing with an
"incompetent compliance regulatory authority" that had "absolutely
no idea of what its duties and responsibilities to the consumer
are".

May 24

VBA denies the homeowners request to terminate Reddo Building
surveyor Peter Eyres. [GN]


BLOOMINGDALE'S: Fails to Pay Unpaid Wages, "Makarios" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVIA MAKARIOS, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BLOOMINGDALE'S, the Defendant, Case No.17-
1673 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 2, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages which Bloomingdale's has wrongfully refused to pay, pursuant
to Massachusetts General Laws.

According to the complaint, Ms. Makarios worked in the shoe
department of Bloomingdale's. She worked in that position since
the late summer of 2016. In her position, she received only
commissions as to her sale of shoes to customers. She did not
receive an hourly wage. While employed as a shoe salesperson,
Bloomingdale's forced Ms. Makarios to work in the stockroom each
morning for at least one hour each day of work. All other
individuals working as sales associates in the shoe department
also had been forced to work in the stockroom as well. All of
these individuals had been paid in the same manner as Ms.
Makarios. They received only sales commissions. They did not
receive any hourly wages.

Bloomingdale's is a luxury department store owned by Macy's, Inc.
It was founded in 1861.BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Trombeta, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. TROMBETA
          121 North Main Street, Suite 12
          Mansfield, MA 0204
          Telephone: (508) 339-5900
          Facsimile: (508) 339-3111
          E-mail: chris@trombettalaw.com


BLUE CROSS: Seeks Transfer of "Cates" to Cook County
----------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record reports that directors of Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Illinois, contesting a class claim for damages and
appointment of a receiver, have asked St. Clair County Associate
Judge Christopher Kolker to transfer the action to Cook County.

Attorney Helen Witt of Chicago moved for transfer on May 11,
writing that more than 24 percent of individuals covered by the
Blues in Illinois reside in Cook County.

"By contrast, less than one half of one percent of such
individuals reside in St. Clair County," she wrote.

She wrote that the headquarters of the ownership entity, Health
Care Services Corporation, is three blocks from the Cook County
courthouse.

David Cates of Swansea filed the suit against the directors of the
corporation, on behalf of the corporation itself.

He filed it in association with David Novoselsky of Waukegan and
son Jonathan Novoselsky of Chicago.

Lead plaintiff Foley & Kelly, a St. Clair County law firm, claimed
defendants obtained financial rewards through subsidiaries they
created.

According to defendants, the location of the lead plaintiff
doesn't matter.

"There is no indication that Foley & Kelly is anything more than a
phantom plaintiff with interest enough to enable it to institute
the action," Ms. Witt wrote.

"In fact, prior to filing this action, counsel for Foley & Kelly
filed a complaint virtually identical to the original complaint in
this action, save for a handful of minor edits, in Lake County,
with a different nominal plaintiff."

After the directors moved to dismiss the St. Clair County action
as a duplicate of the Lake County action, Jonathan Novoselsky
dismissed the Lake County action.

Ms. Witt wrote that counsel for Foley & Kelly served one
deposition notice.

"That deposition notice indicates that the deposition is to take
place, at the insistence of counsel for Foley & Kelly, in Cook
County," she wrote. [GN]


BLUE HILL: Settles Wage Theft Class Action for $2 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Stefanie Tuder, writing for Eater New York, reports that
Dan Barber's Blue Hill at Stone Barns, named the best restaurant
in America by Eater and sitting at number 11 on the World's 50
Best list, has settled a class-action wage theft lawsuit for a
whopping $2 million.

The complaint, first brought up in July 2016 and also brought
against NYC sister restaurant Blue Hill, alleges that Blue Hill
failed to pay certain service employees the correct amount of
money because of tip pool mismanagement, illegal retention of
service charges, and failure to pay overtime.  Specifically, Blue
Hill shared tips with non-service employees like expeditors and
didn't share private event service charges with its service
employees, according the complaint, as well as not paying the
extra hour of pay required by the state for working more than 10
hours in a row.

By settling in December, Blue Hill has not admitted to any
wrongdoing, but will pay $2 million to approximately 250 eligible
former and current servers, bussers, backwaiters, runners,
bartenders, and hosts/hostesses, unless they opt out of the
settlement.  If divided equally, that's roughly $5,000 per
employee, since one-third will go to Wigdor Law LLP, the firm
representing the employees, and lead plaintiffs Leah Jacobs and
David Bobb will each get an additional $25,000.  Any unclaimed
funds will benefit food rescue non-profit City Harvest.

Eater has reached out to Wigdor Law and Blue Hill for comment. The
full court documents are below.

Blue Hill is just the latest NYC restaurant in a string to have
wage lawsuits brought against it.  The most recent is Babu Ji,
which is still ongoing, as well as Babbo, which dished out more
than $5 million in 2012, Per Se's for $500,000, Gramercy Tavern's
for $700,000, and Boulud, which paid $1.4 million -- making Blue
Hill's settlement one of the largest sums in the past decade.
[GN]


C. R. BARD: "Tanguma" Suit Challenges Becton Dickinson Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA STANFORD TANGUMA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. C. R. BARD, INC., TIMOTHY M.
RING, DAVID M. BARRETT, ROBERT M. DAVIS, HERBERT L. HENKEL, JOHN
C. KELLY, DAVID F. MELCHER, GAIL K. NAUGHTON, TOMMY G. THOMPSON,
JOHN H. WEILAND, ANTHONY WELTERS, TONY L. WHITE, BECTON, DICKINSON
AND COMPANY, and LAMBDA CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
03977 (D.N.J., June 2, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a
proposed merger transaction, and in the event defendants
consummate the proposed transaction, rescinding it and setting it
aside or awarding rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on April
24, 2017, pursuant to which C. R. Bard, Inc. will be acquired by
Becton, Dickinson and Company and Lambda Corp. On April 23, 2017,
Bard's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with BD. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, shareholders of Bard will receive $222.93 in
cash and 0.5077 shares of BD stock for each share of Bard common
stock. On May 23, 2017, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Registration Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading.

Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Registration Statement.

C. R. Bard, now branded simply as Bard, headquartered in Murray
Hill, New Jersey, USA, is a leading multinational developer,
manufacturer, and marketer of medical technologies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623 3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623 0858
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

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


CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Suit over Trust Indenture Act Ends
--------------------------------------------------------
California Resources 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 a purported
class action against the Company relating to the Trust Indenture
Act of 1939 was dismissed in April 2017.

California Resources is an independent oil and natural gas
exploration and production company operating properties within
California.


CANADA: Findlay McCarthy Used Caledonia Settlement Funds
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicole O'Reilly, writing for Hamilton Spectator, reports that a
Hamilton law firm that fought on behalf of Caledonia residents
disrupted by the tense occupation of a controversial housing
project has spent money from the class-action settlement and
doesn't have the means to pay it back.

A notice posted on the official Caledonia Class Action website
says $1.5 million of a fund that was supposed to be paid out this
spring is gone without explanation and the law firm responsible,
Findlay McCarthy Professional Corporation, has filed a "self-
reporting complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada."

Lawyer John Findlay declined to comment on May 31, adding any
updates will be posted to the class-action website, which is run
by his firm.

The money was a chunk of the $20-million settlement Ontario agreed
to in July 2011 to settle a class-action lawsuit launched in the
wake of the occupation by members of Six Nations at a
controversial housing project on Argyle Street South.

Protesters from Six Nations occupied the Douglas Creek Estates
(DCE) site in February 2006, arguing it was unsurrendered land.
The dispute led to tense standoffs, blockades and disruption to
neighbouring Caledonia residents.

In 2011, CH News reported that of the $20-million settlement,
Findlay received a $3-million cut. In court, Superior Court Judge
David Crane was quoted as saying he didn't approve of such a high
fee, but noted it had already been agreed upon, adding Findlay
took on a difficult case when no one else would.

In 2012, the $1.5 million was placed in reserve for any claims
made after the initial deadline. According to information on the
Caledonia Class Action website, PRO-C Limited was retained to
administer the final funds, including calculating the amounts paid
to each member depending how close their home or business was to
the DCE land.

A representative from PRO-C did not respond to a request for
comment.

After getting court approval Jan. 23, it had been anticipated that
the final payments would start rolling out in spring.

However, the update posted May 29 by the Findlay firm said:
"Findlay McCarthy PC used the settlement funds held in trust for
the final administration of the Caledonia Compensation Plan and
have been unable to replenish these funds in order to effect the
final distribution at this time."

There was no explanation given for where the money went.

Craig Grice, a Haldimand County councillor who lived beside the
DCE site at the time of the occupation, said he had no idea the
funds were missing until it was reported by the media.

He last received a letter March 14 indicating a payment was
coming.

"It's never been about the money; it's all about trying to resolve
(the DCE property)," Mr. Grice said.

The original class action involved 800 residents and business
owners.  It's unclear how many are affected by the outstanding
final payments.

Meanwhile, the DCE land remains vacant, after the lone property on
the site burned down last November, and negotiations over the land
claim stalled years ago.

If the Law Society of Upper Canada investigation finds a breach
under its rules or bylaws, a hearing panel can find a lawyer or
paralegal guilty of misconduct, said spokesperson Susan Tonkin.
Penalties can range from suspensions to revoking a licence.

Interim measures to "protect the public" can also be imposed while
an investigation is ongoing, she added.

There are rules under the law society's code of conduct and bylaws
that outline requirements for handling trust accounts "intended to
maintain a separation between the money that belongs to a client
and the money that belongs to a lawyer," Ms. Tonkin said.

Money can only be withdrawn under specific circumstances,
including for the client, to reimburse the licensee for money paid
to a client and "payment of fees (for) services performed by the
licensee for which billing has been delivered."

Haldimand-Norfolk MPP Toby Barrett, who has long been critical of
how the dispute was handled, called the latest development a
"boondoggle."

"This really kind of rubs salt in the wound," he said.  "I don't
know whether there is anybody left in Caledonia who has any faith
left in various institutions of government, the police, the courts
and the legal system."

Mr. Barrett, who was at Queen's Park on May 31, said he intends to
drive to Caledonia to speak with residents and business owners on
June 1. [GN]


CANADA: Court OKs RCMP Sexual Harassment Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that an
unprecedented settlement that will pay up to $220,000 to women who
were sexually harassed while working for the RCMP over the past 40
years has been approved by a Federal Court judge, who called the
agreement fair and reasonable.

In a written decision, Judge Ann Marie McDonald called the
settlement one that was in the women's best interests, given that
litigation might otherwise have dragged on for years with
uncertain prospects as to an outcome.

"The proposed settlement has a number of features and benefits
that extend beyond a strictly monetary compensation scheme and, as
a result, the settlement agreement goes well beyond what the
plaintiffs may have been awarded after a trial," Judge McDonald
said.

"Considering the very personal and painful nature of the claims,
the settlement process includes a non-adversarial claims process
with numerous safeguards to protect the privacy of claimants."

The deal covers all women harassed while working for the RCMP,
starting in September 1974 when the force first began taking
female recruits.  Many of the women would otherwise now have had
no legal recourse because of the passage of time.

Each victim is eligible for a minimum of $10,000, with $220,000
going to those most egregiously harmed.  In some cases, close
relatives can receive a total of 10 per cent of a claimant's
reward.

While as many as 20,000 women are believed eligible for
compensation, the lawyers involved estimate more than 1,000
claimants will receive about $89 million.  The government has set
aside $100 million for the payouts, even though there is no total
cap.

First class action of its kind in Canada

Judge McDonald praised the agreement for including a public RCMP
apology to the women -- already delivered by Commissioner
Bob Paulson in October -- along with "institutional change
initiatives" aimed at eradicating gender-based harassment.

Neither the RCMP nor the federal government explicitly admitted
any wrongdoing.

The judge also agreed the two law firms involved should get 15 per
cent of the claims paid to victims.  The lawyers had initially
signed on for 33.3 per cent.  They agreed to cut that in half
because the government is also paying them $12 million.

Megan McPhee, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, expressed pride at
the outcome of the lawsuit.

"This is the first workplace gender-based harassment class action
settlement in Canada," Ms. McPhee said on May 31.  "We're hopeful
that it will provide a model for people in other situations . . .
where there has been harassment or deeply personal common injury."

'The toll has been horrific'

Judge McDonald approved $15,000 in honoraria for two
representative plaintiffs -- Janet Merlo and Linda Davidson.

"This included publicizing their personal account of the gender
and sexual-orientation harassment which they endured within the
RCMP," Judge McDonald said.  "This has required the public
reliving of painful events."

In an interview on May 31, Ms. Davidson, 58, now of Bracebridge,
Ont., said she had to speak out when she realized her attempts at
internal redress were going nowhere and that many other women were
"very silent" about what they were enduring.

At the same time, she said, it's been a difficult path.

"My whole life has been exposed to every Canadian and American and
anybody who wanted to read my most frail and intimate moments,"
said Ms. Davidson, who started with the RCMP in 1985 and became
one of the few women to become a commissioned officer. "It's taken
its toll.  The toll has been horrific."

Now retired after a medical leave, Davidson said what kept her
going have been the messages from other RCMP women thanking her
for helping ensure they have been believed.

After a 60-day obligatory appeal period -- the government
consented to the settlement -- women will have six months to make
a claim for compensation.

Former Supreme Court of Canada justice Michel Bastarache, who will
travel the country to interview claimants, will oversee the
process. [GN]


CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Sued for Misleading Students on Accreditation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Guarnaccia, writing for Law360, reports that students from
the for-profit Charlotte School of Law told a North Carolina
federal court on May 30 they have necessary standing and facts to
support their claims that the school hid its noncompliance with
American Bar Association accreditation standards.

The six students hit back at a trio of motions to dismiss by CSL,
investment fund Infilaw Corp. and their owner, private equity firm
Sterling Partners, in the proposed class action lawsuit alleging
CSL failed to disclose multiple instances of noncompliance with
the ABA's accreditation standards. [GN]

The case is Krebs et al v. Charlotte School of Law, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00190 (W.D.N.C.).  The case is assigned to Judge
Graham Mullen.


CHINA AGRITECH: Statute of Limitations Applicable to Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yvette Davis, Esq. -- ydavis@hbblaw.com -- and Michael Parme, Esq.
-- mparme@hbblaw.com -- of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, wrote that in Resh v. China Agritech, No. 15-
55432, published May 24, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
held that a would-be class action is not time barred where (1) the
plaintiffs were unnamed plaintiffs in two earlier would-be class
actions against many of the same defendants based on the same
underlying events; (2) class certification was denied in the both
the prior cases; (3) the earlier actions were timely; and (4) the
statute of limitations applicable to the individual claims of
would-be class members were tolled.

The Resh decision was a class action filed on behalf of certain
shareholders related to allegations that the defendant, China
Agritech, had been engaged in defrauding the public and its
investors.  Two prior would-be class actions were filed regarding
the same underlying events, and the plaintiffs in Resh were
unnamed class members in those actions.  The first class action
was filed, but class certification was denied based on lack of
predominance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP)
23(b)(3).  The district court in that action found that the
plaintiffs would have to individually establish reliance to
support their securities fraud claim.  In the second lawsuit,
which was also filed within the applicable statute of limitations,
the district court again denied class certification on grounds
that the named plaintiffs failed to satisfy the typicality
requirement of FRCP 23(a)(3) and the adequate representation
requirement of FRCP 23 (a)(4).  In the third action, Resh, it was
undisputed that the prior two class actions had tolled the
individual claims of the would-be class members. However, the
district court dismissed the lawsuit on grounds that it was filed
after the applicable statute of limitations, which had not been
tolled for purposes of an entirely new class action based upon a
substantially identical class.

The question presented on appeal was whether Resh could proceed as
a class action or merely on the individual claims that had been
tolled during the pendency of the prior litigation.  The Ninth
Circuit ruled, after reviewing numerous prior precedents, that
allowing the named plaintiffs in Resh to proceed in a class action
was consistent with public policy. The court dismissed the
defendants' arguments that tolling such claims would invite
plaintiffs to file successive lawsuits where class certification
is denied.

There is little question that Resh will be embraced by the
plaintiffs' bar given that it suggests that an adverse ruling on
class certification can be overcome.  Prior to Resh, the
significance of successfully opposing class certification was
tremendous because it left only disparate individualized claims
that may not be practical or economical to litigate on an
individual basis.  Resh suggests successfully opposing class
certification may just be the prelude to the next would-be class
action brought on substantially the same grounds.  While the Ninth
Circuit's decision indicates abusive practices will be curtailed
by financial incentives and comity, it is difficult, from a
defense perspective, to discern any meaningful substantive
limitation on this new rule. [GN]


CIGNA CORPORATION: Faces "Crowder" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Crowder, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cigna Corporation, Cigna Healthcare of
Texas, Inc., Healthspring Life & Insurance Company, Inc., and
Cigna Health Spring, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-01660 (S.D. Tex., June
2, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and Class Members for their overtime
hours at the rate of one and one half times their regular rates of
pay.

The Defendants provide health insurance policies to businesses,
individuals, and the government. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces "Fleming" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kanisha Fleming, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Community Health Choice, Inc., Case No.
4:17-cv-01659 (S.D. Tex., June 2, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants failure to compensate Utilization Management Nurses for
their overtime hours at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay.

Community Health Choice, Inc. operates in the healthcare services
field and sells health insurance policies to businesses,
individuals, and the government. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com


COMMUNITY INSURANCE: "Berg" Suit Alleges Parity Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Berg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Community Insurance Company d/b/a Anthem
Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01125-DAP
(N.D. Ohio, May 30, 2017), alleges that Defendant's denial of
coverage for services rendered to the Plaintiff at a residential
treatment center breaches the protections of the federal Mental
Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (Parity Act).

Plaintiff received her health insurance through her employer, Case
Western Reserve University, a private university located
principally in Cleveland, Ohio, within this judicial district.
This self-funded plan is administered by defendant Community
Insurance Company d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield.[BN]

Community Insurance Company, Inc., doing business as Anthem Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Ohio, provides health insurance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert R. Sparks, Esq.
     STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
     150 E. Fourth Street
     Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
     Phone: 513-621-2120
     Fax: 513-241-8259
     Email: rrsparks@strausstroy.com

        - and -

     Jordan Lewis, Esq.
     JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
     4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
     Phone: 954-616-8995
     Fax: 954-206-0374
     Email: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com


CONSTRUCTIVE HOMES: Faces "Azevedo" Suit in New York Sup. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Constructive Homes
Inc. The case is styled as AZEVEDO, FELICIANO OBO HOMSELF AND ALL
OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED AS TRUST FUND BENEFICIARIES OF
LIEN LAW TRUSTS OF WHICH CONSTRUCTIVE HOMES INC, IS A TRUSTEE, the
Plaintiff, v. GALARZA, STEPHEN, CONSTRUCTIVE HOMES INC., SAVERIO
J. BRUSCINO, BELLMORE STEEL PRODUCTS CORP., KLEET LUMBER CO.,
INC., JOHN DOE ONE THROUGH TEN, the Defendant, Case No.
603130/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 2, 2017). The case is assigned to
the Hon. Martha L. Luft.

Constructive Homes are custom builders who specialize in
individual designs for luxury home renovations and home
extensions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marshall M. Stern, Esq.
          17 Cardiff Court
          Huntington Sta, NY 11746
          Telephone: (631) 427 0101

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard G. Handler, Esq.
          50 Broadway-Pob 427
          Amityville, NY 11701
          Telephone: (631) 598-1400

               - and -

          Martin Silver, Esq.
          330 Motor Pkwy, Ste. 201
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 435 0700

               - and -

          Danielle Sicari, Esq.
          684 Broadway
          Massapequa, NY 11657
          Telephone: (718) 724 3979


CPI CARD: Discovery Stayed in Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
CPI Card Group 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 all discovery and
other proceedings in the action captioned as, CPI Card Group Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:16-CV-04531 (S.D.N.Y.), are
stayed pending the resolution of a motion to dismiss.

On June 15, 2016, two purported CPI shareholders filed putative
class action lawsuits captioned Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group
Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against CPI and certain of its officers and directors, along with
the sponsors of and the financial institutions who served as
underwriters for CPI's October 2015 initial public offering
("IPO"). The complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of CPI common stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015
Registration Statement filed in connection with the IPO, assert
claims under Sections11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") and seek, among other things, damages and costs.

In particular, the complaints allege that the Registration
Statement contained false or misleading statements or omissions
regarding CPI's customers' (i) purchases of Europay, MasterCard,
and VISA chip cards (collectively, "EMV cards") during the first
half of fiscal year 2015 and resulting EMV card inventory levels,
and (ii) capacity to purchase additional EMV cards in the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2015, and the remainder of the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015. The complaints allege that these actions
artificially inflated the price of CPI common stock issued
pursuant to the IPO.

On August 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the Vance and Chipman
actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). On October
17, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint,
asserting the same claims for violations of Sections11 and 15 of
the Securities Act. The amended complaint is based principally on
the same theories as the original complaints, but adds allegations
that the Registration Statement contained inadequate risk
disclosures and failed to disclose (i) small and mid-size issuers'
slower-than-anticipated conversion to EMV technology and (ii)
increased pricing pressure and competition CPI faced in the EMV
market.

On November 16, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. All discovery and other proceedings in the
action are stayed under the PSLRA pending the resolution of that
motion.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend the action vigorously.  Given the current stage of these
matters, the range of potential loss is not probable or estimable
and no accrual has been recognized as of March 31, 2017 and
December 31, 2016.


DEVILLE ASSET: "Caceres" Suit Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN CACERES, Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. DEVILLE ASSET MANANGEMENT, the
Defendant, Case No. L-1746-17 (N.J. Sup. Ct., May 22, 2017), seeks
statutory damages, award costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, and
further as a result of Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, on March 23, 2017, Defendant sent
Plaintiff an initial collection letter for an alleged unpaid car
lease payment. Debt collection letters are viewed from the
perspective of the "least sophisticated consumer." The letter
sought to collect principal of $16,538.32 and interest of $2.02.
The letter did not disclose to Plaintiff the rate of interest, or
as of what date the payment would be considered satisfied in the
event Plaintiff sent the "Total" amount. In other words, was
Defendant to receive Plaintiffs payment of $16,540.34 on June 23,
2017, this amount would not satisfy the obligation because the
interest would have increased the debt from May 23, 2017 until
June 23, 2017. Yet, Defendant failed to inform Plaintiff of this
fact.

Defendant is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          78 John Miller Way Suite 430
          Kearny, NJ 07032
          Telephone: (862) 227 3106


DE VILLE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Falbo" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Falbo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. De Ville Asset Management, Ltd., Case No. 1:17-cv-
04206 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

De Ville Asset Management, Ltd. operates a nationwide debt
collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Telephone: (708) 974-2900
      Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
      E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com

         - and -

      Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
      BARDO LAW, P.C.
      22 West Washington Street Suite 1500
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 219-6980
      Facsimile: (312) 219-6981
      E-mail: stacy@bardolawpc.com


DEVRY EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss Pension Trust Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
DeVry Education Group 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 defendants' motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit by the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers remains pending.

On May 13, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, against DeVry Group, Daniel
Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased DeVry Group common stock between February 4, 2011 and
January 27, 2016. Citing the FTC lawsuit and the ED January 2016
Notice, the plaintiff claims that defendants made false or
misleading statements regarding DeVry University's graduate
employment rate and the earnings of DeVry University graduates
relative to the graduates of other universities and colleges. As a
result of these false or misleading statements about DeVry
University graduate outcomes, plaintiff alleges, defendants
overstated DeVry Group's growth, revenue and earnings potential
and made false or misleading statements about DeVry Group's
business, operations and prospects. The plaintiff alleges direct
liability against all defendants for violations of Sec.10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and asserted liability against the
individual defendants pursuant to Sec.20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and other unspecified relief.

On July 13, 2016, the Utah Retirement System ("URS") moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of
counsel, which was not opposed by the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers and URS was appointed as lead plaintiff on
August 24, 2016.

URS filed a second amended complaint ("SAC") on December 23, 2016.
The SAC seeks to represent a putative class of persons who
purchased DeVry Group common stock between August 26, 2011 and
January 27, 2016 and names an additional individual defendant,
Patrick J. Unzicker. Like the original complaint, the SAC asserts
claims against all defendants for alleged violations of Sec.10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and asserted liability against
the individual defendants pursuant to Sec.20(a) of the Exchange
Act for alleged material misstatements or omissions regarding
DeVry University graduate outcomes. On January 27, 2017,
defendants moved to dismiss the SAC.

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


DEVRY EDUCATION: Bid to Dismiss Robinson and Brown Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
DeVry Education Group 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 defendants' motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit by T'Lani Robinson and Robby Brown
remains pending.

On or about June 21, 2016, T'Lani Robinson and Robby Brown filed
an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association in
Chicago, seeking to represent a putative class of students who
received a DeVry University education from January 1, 2008 until
April 8, 2016 ("Putative Class Period"). Following DeVry Group's
filing of a declaratory judgment action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking,
among other things, an order declaring that federal court is the
appropriate venue for this putative class action, on September 12,
2016, Robinson and Brown voluntarily withdrew their demand for
arbitration.

On September 20, 2016, Robinson and Brown answered the declaratory
judgement action and filed a putative class action counterclaim,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
DeVry Group Inc., DeVry University, Inc., and DeVry/New York, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The counterclaim asserted causes of action for breach of
contract, misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, violations
of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the
Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, conversion,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs sought
monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.

On November 4, 2016, following a stipulated dismissal of the
declaratory action, the DeVry Parties moved to dismiss the
counterclaim after which plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew it.

On December 2, 2016, Robinson and Brown filed an amended complaint
adding two additional named plaintiffs. The amended complaint
purports to assert nationwide class claims under the above-
referenced Illinois statutes and common law theories on behalf of
those who, during the Putative Class Period, (i) enrolled in DeVry
University; (ii) financed their education with DeVry University
with direct loans administered by ED; or (iii) entered into an
enrollment agreement with DeVry University and otherwise paid for
a DeVry University education. The amended complaint also seeks to
represent a fourth class of individuals residing in, or enrolled
in a DeVry University campus located in, California during the
Putative Class Period bringing claims under the California
Business and Profession Code.

In addition to the claims previously asserted, the amended
complaint adds a claim for breach of fiduciary duty owed students
in administering Title IV funds.

The DeVry Parties moved to dismiss the amended complaint on
January 13, 2017.

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


DEVRY EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss "Petrizzo" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
DeVry Education Group 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 defendants' motion to
dismiss the Petrizzo class action lawsuit remains pending.

On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
the DeVry Parties in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "Petrizzo Case"). The complaint
was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of
those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at DeVry University
from at least 2002 through the present and who were unable to find
employment within their chosen field of study within six months of
graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that
defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry
University's graduate employment rate and asserted claims for
unjust enrichment and violations of six different states' consumer
fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The
plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other
unspecified relief.

On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, against the DeVry Parties in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Jara
Case"). The individual plaintiffs claim to have graduated from
DeVry University in 2001 or later and sought to proceed on behalf
of a putative class of persons consisting of those who obtained a
degree from DeVry University and who were unable to find
employment within their chosen field of study within six months of
graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that
defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry
University's graduate employment rate and asserted claims for
unjust enrichment and violations of ten different states' consumer
fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The
plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other
unspecified relief.

By Order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the
Petrizzo and Jara Cases be consolidated under the Petrizzo caption
for all further purposes. On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint on behalf of 38 individual
plaintiffs and others similarly situated. The amended consolidated
complaint seeks to bring claims on behalf of the named individuals
and a putative nationwide class of individuals for unjust
enrichment and alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Practices Act and the Illinois Private Businesses
and Vocational Schools Act of 2012.

In additional, it purports to assert causes of action on behalf of
certain of the named individuals and 15 individual state-specific
putative classes for alleged violations of 15 different states'
consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection
laws. Finally, it seeks to bring individual claims under Georgia
state law on behalf of certain named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
seek monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified
relief.

The DeVry Parties moved to dismiss the complaint on February 3,
2017.

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


DIRECT MERCHANTS: Milosch Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS MILOSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Direct Merchants Funding, LLC d.b.a.
Flash Advance, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00904-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal., May 24,
2017), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant), in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and related regulations,
specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thus invading
Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, around December 2016, Defendant
contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
ending in -3322, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase
Defendant's services. Defendant used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit
its services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to contact
Plaintiff from telephone number (360) 474-3278 confirmed to be
Defendant's number.  Defendant's calls constituted calls that were
not for emergency purposes. Defendant's calls were placed to
telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for
which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls. The Defendant
did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive
calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial
or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone.[BN]

Direct Merchants is a short-term business credit agency located in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIVERSANT: Sued Over Failure to Provide Copy of Consumer Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luticia Taylor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Diversant, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01711-JJT (D. Ariz.,
June 2, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically by failure to provide
a copy of the consumer report to the applicant prior to refusing
to hire the applicant based on the result; failure to provide a
copy of a summary of the applicant's right under the FCRA before
declining to hire or discharging the applicant; and for knowingly
and intentionally or with conscious disregard of the rights of the
consumers.

Diversant, LLC owns and operates a IT staffing and solutions
company in New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Susan Mary Rotkins, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES WEST, PLLC
      382 South Convent Avenue
      Tucson, AZ 85701
      Telephone: (520) 622-2481
      E-mail: srotkis@clalegal.com


DYNAMEX INC: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Vivlamore" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Vivlamore, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
individuals v. Dynamex, Inc., Phenedai Courier Services,
LLC, Solomon Appiah-Kubi, and Edward Alwis, Case No. 17-1642
(Mass. Cmmw. Ct., June 1, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a company offering package delivery
services throughout Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


E.I. DU PONT: Faces "Cook" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Cook, James Botts, Shawn Hunter, Larry LaClair, Thomas
Short, George Willis, James Cahoon, and Chris Paulley, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. E.I. Du Pont De
Nemours And Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-00909 (M.D. Tenn., June 2,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours And Company is a science and technology
based company located at 1002 Industrial Dr., Old Hickory, TN
37138. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles P. Yezbak, Esq.
      YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
      2002 Richard Jones Rd. Suite B-200
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Telephone: (615) 250-2000
      E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com

         - and -

      Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
      Diana J. Nobile, Esq.
      William Li, Esq.
      WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
      1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Suite 1000
      Washington, DC  20005
      Telephone: (202) 833-8855
      E-mail: gkm@wmlaborlaw.com
              djn@wmlaborlaw.com
              wwl@wmlaborlaw.com


ELITE MODEL: Judge Drops State Labor Claims in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub, Jeff Sistrunk, Stewart Bishop and Kat Greene, writing
for Law360, report that a New York judge dropped state labor law
claims against two modeling agencies that allegedly stiffed models
on fees for the repeated use of their images, but he said such
claims could proceed against four other agencies targeted in the
proposed class action.

New York Supreme Court Judge O. Peter Sherwood on May 30 tossed
the New York labor law claims that the models had brought against
Elite Model Management Corp. and Major Model Management Inc. on
the grounds they were time-barred.

But he allowed those claims to go forward against Wilhelmina
International Ltd., Click Model Management Inc., MC2 Model and
Talent Miami LLC, and Next Management LLC since the claims accrued
on or after Oct. 24, 2007.

During oral arguments over the agencies' dismissal motions before
Judge Sherwood in Manhattan in June 2016, an attorney for Elite
argued that the labor law claims are untimely under the relevant
six-year statute of limitations for the original 2013 complaint,
since they relate to models who ceased to have any relationship
with the agency by 2005.

In his opinion dated May 25, Judge Sherwood agreed, saying that
since only wages are recoverable under New York labor law -- and
since usage fees are not wages -- the New York labor law claims
against Elite and Major must be dismissed.

Judge Sherwood also dismissed claims for conversion, breach of the
duty of good faith and unjust enrichment against all of the
agencies.  Breach of contract claims were also dismissed in cases
where the claimed breach occurred prior to Oct. 24, 2007, and also
on the grounds that those claims brought against Elite and MC2
were not sufficiently pleaded.

Judge Sherwood set a conference date for June 27, according to the
opinion.

The models claim in their October 2013 complaint that the agencies
collected usage and reuse fees from advertising agencies and
companies that used their likenesses on products such as hair
color boxes and in television commercials, but hadn't paid the
models for the work.

The models further claim the agencies have run afoul of wage and
hour laws by failing to pay them overtime or minimum wage, and
making unauthorized deductions from their paychecks.

In August 2014, Judge Sherwood dismissed L'Oreal USA Inc., Procter
& Gamble Co.'s owner and several advertising agencies from the
case, but allowed the claims to proceed against several modeling
agencies.

The most recent complaint -- amended for a third time in January
2016 -- includes allegations that the agencies violated New York's
wage and hour laws by failing to pay minimum wages or overtime,
failing to pay for attendance at mandatory meetings, delaying the
payment of wages, making improper deductions from their paychecks
and failing to issue wage statements.

Robert Hantman -- rhantman@hantmanlaw.com -- an attorney who
represents MC2, told Law360 on May 31, "[The] decision is common
sense and well documented and will help all models."

"As will be proven during discovery, [the] case has no merit," he
added.

Gary Friedman, an attorney for Elite, told Law360 in an emailed
statement that the "decision is significant . . . as it sharpens
the contours of what constitutes 'wages' under the New York Labor
Law."

"Relying on the New York Court of Appeals' seminal Truelove
decision, Justice Sherwood was laser-like in separating
compensation that is contingent and dependent, from that which is
guaranteed, correctly concluding that the former does not
constitute 'wages' under New York law," Mr. Friedman said.

"Significantly, the court distinguished the usages payments at
issue in the case from 'commissions,' which are wages when they
are guaranteed as a result of services rendered. This decision has
a deep reservoir of language regarding what constitutes 'wages'
under the New York Labor Law from which all employers can draw."

Adam Wolfson, an attorney for the models, noted in a phone
interview that the judge held that the plaintiffs adequately
alleged that modeling agencies are employers.

"It's actually a very good decision for models," he said.

Anthony Lupo -- anthony.lupo@arentfox.com -- who leads the fashion
law group at Arent Fox LLP, which was not involved in the case,
said in a phone interview on May 31 that "it's a very logical
decision.

"Continued use of a photograph is not considered as employment,"
Mr. Lupo said.

Attorneys for the remaining parties did not respond to requests
for comment.

The models are represented by Christopher D. Kercher --
christopherkercher@quinnemanuel.com -- Adam Wolfson --
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com -- Kimberly E. Carson and Amir Badat
-- amirbadat@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP.

Wilhelmina is represented by Richard G. Haddad and Sandor Frankel
of Otterbourg PC. Elite is represented by Gary Friedman --
gary.friedman@weil.com -- and David R. Fertig --
david.fertig@weil.com -- of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP. Click is
represented by Mark W. Moody of MW Moody LLC. MC2 is represented
by Robert J. Hantman of Hantman & Associates. Next Management is
represented by Cara A. O'Sullivan -- cosullivan@kbrlaw.com -- of
Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP. Major Model is represented by Kate
Maguire -- katemaguire@kmlawny.com -- of Ken Maguire & Associates.

The case is Shanklin et al. v. Wilhelmina Models Inc. et al., case
number 653702/2013, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York. [GN]


FAIRVIEW HEALTH: Gets Favorable Ruling in Robocall Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy H. Koo, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a nonprofit
corporation that operates hospitals in Minnesota and sells medical
devices didn't violate federal robocall rules, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed (Zean v. Fairview Health
Servs., 2017 BL 177421, 8th Cir., No. 16-1747, 5/26/17).

Judge James B. Loken said May 26 that Fairview Health Services'
two exhibits, although heavily redacted, show plaintiff Samuel
Zean's express consent to receive calls to his mobile phone
relating to the purchase of replacement supplies for a medical
device he purchased from the company.

Dissenting, Judge Jane L. Kelly said the court "has no evidence
aside from Fairview's affidavit that these heavily redacted
exhibits are the contract," and noted that the authenticity of the
exhibits is disputed. Kelly said the court mistakenly relied on
the exhibits and should have remanded the case instead.

According to the class action complaint, Mr. Zean purchased from
Fairview a medical device that requires the periodic purchase of
replacement supplies.  Mr. Zean allegedly started receiving
automated telemarketing phone calls from Fairview on his mobile
phone, inquiring whether he would like to purchase replacement
supplies.  When Mr. Zean didn't answer the calls, Fairview left
prerecorded messages providing instructions on how to order
supplies.

Until Mr. Zean asked a Fairview employee to stop calling him with
offers, he allegedly received approximately 25 calls between
September 2014 and August 2015.

Authenticity

Alleging that the phone calls and the voicemail messages were left
without the express consent of class members, Mr. Zean asserted
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The lower
court dismissed the suit, concluding that the two heavily redacted
exhibits establish that Mr. Zean gave Fairview prior express
consent to make calls to his phone.

Appealing, Mr. Zean argued that the lower court shouldn't have
relied on the redacted exhibits and challenged their authenticity.
However, the appeals court said the authenticity of the document
"is a bogus issue."  Even though Mr. Zean objected to the lower
court considering the exhibits, he never argued that the documents
weren't properly authenticated, the court concluded.

Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP represented Zean. Stinson
Leonard Street LLP represented Fairview. [GN]


FEDEX OFFICE: "Johnson" Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jeanetta Johnson, an individual on
behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc., a
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. RG17856291, was removed on
May 17, 2017 from the Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:17-cv-02835-JCS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.

FedEx Office is a chain of stores that provide a retail outlet for
FedEx Express and FedEx Ground shipping, as well as printing,
copying, and binding services. Unlike its main competitor, The UPS
Store, all FedEx Office stores are corporate-owned.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Kyle Roald Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Victoria Bree Rivapalacio, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com
                  aj@bamlawlj.com
                  kyle@bamlawlj.com
                  victoria@bamlawca.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Michael Peterson, Esq.
          HIGGS FLETCHER AND MACK LLP
          401 West "A" Street, Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101-7913
          Telephone: (619) 236 1551
          Facsimile: (619) 696 1410
          E-mail: peterson@higgslaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher Aaron Rheinheimer, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS
          One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 291 7468
          Facsimile: (415) 291 7474
          E-mail: crheinheimer@manatt.com

               - and -

          Kyle William Nageotte, Esq.
          HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK, LLP
          401 West "A" Street, Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 236 1551
          Facsimile: (619) 696 1410
          E-mail: nageottek@higgslaw.com

               - and -

          Sharon Beth Bauman, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 291 7425
          Facsimile: (415) 291 7474
          E-mail: sbauman@manatt.com


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Estimates $9MM Settlement Cost in "Cressy"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life 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 at March 31, the
Company estimated the total cost for the settlement in the Cressy
class action lawsuit, legal fees and other costs related to Cressy
would be $9 million, with a liability for the unpaid portion of
the estimate of less than $1 million.

On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Eddie L. Cressy filed a putative class
Complaint captioned Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life
Insurance Company, et. al. in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), Case No. BC-514340. The
Complaint was filed after the Plaintiff was unable to maintain an
action in federal court. The Complaint asserts, inter alia, that
the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on
Defendants' advice in purchasing allegedly unsuitable equity-
indexed insurance policies.

On January 2, 2015, the Court entered Final Judgment in Cressy,
certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the
class settlement reached on April 4, 2014. On August 10, 2015, the
Company tendered $1 million to the Settlement Administrator for a
claim review fund. The Company implemented an interest enhancement
feature for certain policies as part of the class settlement,
which enhancement began on October 12, 2015.

On October 24, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Motion to amend the
January 2, 2015 Final Order and Judgment, to extend the deadline
for settlement completion from October 24, 2016 to December 5,
2016. On December 5, 2016, Plaintiff Cressy filed a Notice of
Filing Declaration of Settlement Administrator and Status of
Completion of Settlement; the Declaration of Settlement
Administrator included a certification by the Settlement
Administrator that the Company had complied in all respects with
the class settlement and that all eligible claims had been paid
and the interest enhancement had been implemented pursuant to the
terms of the class settlement.

At March 31, 2017, the Company estimated the total cost for the
settlement, legal fees and other costs related to Cressy would be
$9 million, with a liability for the unpaid portion of the
estimate of less than $1 million. The Company has incurred and
paid $6 million related to legal fees and other costs and $3
million related to settlement costs as of March 31, 2017.

Based on the information currently available the Company does not
expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other
related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued.

Fidelity & Guaranty Life is a subsidiary of HRG Group, Inc.
(formerly, Harbinger Group Inc. ("HRG")).  FGL markets products
through its wholly-owned insurance subsidiaries, Fidelity &
Guaranty Life Insurance Company ("FGL Insurance") and Fidelity &
Guaranty Life Insurance Company of New York ("FGL NY Insurance"),
which together is licensed in all fifty states and the District of
Columbia.


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Bid for Supreme Court Review Due by July 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life 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 for
plaintiffs in the Ludwick class action lawsuit to seek
discretionary review before the U.S. Supreme Court will expire on
July 12, 2017.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri
(the "District Court"), captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc.,
Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance
Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd. The complaint alleges
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"), requests injunctive and declaratory relief and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an
amount not presently determinable, treble damages, and other
relief, and claims Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid $0 for her annuity.

On February 12, 2016, the District Court granted the Defendants'
joint motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims. On March 3, 2016,
Plaintiff Ludwick filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the "Court of Appeals").

On April 13, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's decision to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff
has no appeal as of right from the Court of Appeals' decision but
may seek discretionary review by the Court of Appeals en banc or
by the United States Supreme Court. The Plaintiff's time to seek
discretionary review will expire on July 12, 2017.

FGL said it does not have sufficient information to determine
whether it has exposure to any losses that would be either
probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense contingency
estimate of $2 million, which was accrued during the year ended
September 30, 2016.

Fidelity & Guaranty Life is a subsidiary of HRG Group, Inc.
(formerly, Harbinger Group Inc. ("HRG")).  FGL markets products
through its wholly-owned insurance subsidiaries, Fidelity &
Guaranty Life Insurance Company ("FGL Insurance") and Fidelity &
Guaranty Life Insurance Company of New York ("FGL NY Insurance"),
which together is licensed in all fifty states and the District of
Columbia.


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Faces "Taylor" Suit over Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Luticia Taylor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. First Advantage Background Services,
Corp., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01710-DGC (D. Ariz., June
2, 2017), seeks statutory, actual and punitive damages, costs, and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

According to the complaint, in November 2015, Plaintiff applied
for a job with Diversant, LLC. In connection with Plaintiff's
application, Diversant procured Plaintiff's employment-purported
consumer report from First Advantage. The consumer report that
First Advantage furnished to Diversant contained public record
information likely to have an adverse effect upon Plaintiff's
ability to obtain employment. First Advantage furnished this
information to Diversant for the purpose of determining
Plaintiff's eligibility for employment.

The Defendant is a consumer reporting agency with its principal
place of business in Atlanta Georgia. It is regularly engaged in
the business of assembling, evaluating, and disbursing consumer
information reports to third parties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
          Consumer Litigation Associates West, PLLC
          382 South Convent Avenue
          Tucson, AZ 85701
          Telephone: (520) 622 2481
          E-mail: srotkis@clalegal.com


FIRST NATIONAL: Faces "Pacheco" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First National
Collection Bureau, Inc. The case is titled as Joanne Pacheco,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc. and LVNV
Funding, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-03332 (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2017).

First National is an agency that collects debt on behalf of a
variety of creditor clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FIRST STUDENT: "Peck" Suit Moved to District of Oregon
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Chelsea Peck, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. First Student,
Inc., a foreign corporation and First Student Management, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company, Case No. 17CV16084, was removed
on June 2, 2017 from the Multnomah County Circuit Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland (3)). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00863-SI to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael H.
Simon.

First Student, a division of FirstGroup America, is a brand used
by the Scottish transport company FirstGroup for student transport
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Arthur Schuck, Esq.
          Karen A. Moore, Esq.
          SCHUCK LAW, LLC
          9208 NE Hwy 99, Ste 107-84
          Vancouver, WA 98665
          Telephone: (360) 566 9243
          E-mail: dschuck@wageclaim.org
                  kmoore@wageclaim.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam E. Brauner, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 900
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 889 8884
          Facsimile: (503) 821 7947
          E-mail: abrauner@littler.com

                - and -

          Jennifer Neth Warberg, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 900
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 221 0309
          Facsimile: (503) 296 5373
          E-mail: jwarberg@littler.com


FIVE GUYS: "Lusk" Suit Moved from Sup. Ct. to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jeremy R. Lusk, on behalf of
himself, all other similarly situated and the general public, the
Plaintiff, v. Five Guys Enterprises LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and Encore FGBF, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 17C-0118, was removed on June 2, 2017
from KINGS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, U.S. District Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California - (Fresno).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00762-AWI-EPG
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge
Anthony W. Ishii.

Five Guys is an American fast casual restaurant chain focused on
hamburgers, hot dogs, and French fries, and headquartered in
Lorton, Virginia, an unincorporated part of Fairfax County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SHAUN SETAREH
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Todd F. Stevens, Esq.
          KEENEY WAITE & STEVENS
          402 West Broadway Ste 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238 1661
          Facsimile: (619) 231 1897
          E-mail: tstevens@keenlaw.com


FMA ALLIANCE: "Quinn" Suit Sues over Automatic Telephone Dialing
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAULA QUINN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FMA ALLIANCE, LTD., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03865 (N.D. Ill., May 23, 2017), seeks to recover
damages, costs of suit, and other suitable relief from Defendant,
for initiating non-emergency telephone calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system to cellular telephone numbers without the
prior express consent of the called party, in violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, from time to time, Defendant called
Plaintiff's cellular phone and then hung up before Plaintiff could
answer her phone. Other times, FMA called Plaintiff's cellular
telephone, hung up, and did not leave a message. The Plaintiff's
telephone number 773-XXX-4113 is an assigned cellular telephone
number. The purpose of FMA's telephone calls to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone was to collect a debt, and not for emergency
purpose. When Plaintiff answered calls from FMA or when the call
went to Plaintiff's voice message, Plaintiff would hear an initial
period of silence or dead air between 5-7 seconds, and then the
phone disconnected but was not transferred to a "live" person. A
dead air of several seconds between 5-7 seconds at the beginning
of a message or call is telltale characteristic of predictive
dialer technology where the dialer connects a call to a consumer
and then connect to a "live" agent to the call. FMA's calls to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone came from 888-327-8663, which
belongs to FMA. FMA called Plaintiff's cellular telephone using an
automated telephone dialer telephone system, or ATDS. FMA had no
express permission or consent, or otherwise, from Plaintiff prior
to placing automated calls using an ATDS or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on Plaintiff's cellular telephone.

FMA Alliance is a privately owned receivables management company
originally formed in 1983 and headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth M. DucDuong, Esq.
          KMD LAW OFFICE
          4001 West Devon Avenue, Suite 332
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 997 5959
          E-mail: kducduong@kmdlex.com


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Powershift Transmission
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kez Casey, writing for The Motor Report, reports that owners of
Ford Fiesta and Focus models in the United States have launched a
class action lawsuit against the automaker surrounding complaints
against the problematic PowerShift dual-clutch automatic
transmission fitted to those cars.

The suit identified owner problems including unusual noise and
shuddering, delays in downshifting, slipping, jerky operation and
allegations of premature internal wear, and sudden or delayed
acceleration.

The law firm behind the class action, Stern Law, is seeking
financial compensation for Ford owners of affected vehicles built
between 2011 and 2016, citing ineffective software updates and
repeaed measures in failing to rectify owner issues.

Locally, the Fiesta is the only current model in Ford's line-up to
use a PowerShift automatic.  The Focus initially launched with a
PowerShift automatic option in 2011, but 2015 reverted back to a
conventional torque converter automatic, which Ford claimed better
matched driver preferences in the Asia Pacific region.

Local law firm, Bannister Law, is also preparing a similar class
action against Ford in Australia which also includes automatic
versions of the EcoSport small SUV.

In the United States, a similar class action suit that was started
in 2012 was settled in 2016 with owners able to claim either a
cash settlement or a discount certificate off the purchase price
of a new vehicle. [GN]


FOREST CITY: Class Suit over Reclassification Agreement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forest City Realty Trust, 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 a class action lawsuit related to a
Reclassification agreement.

In December 2016, the Company's Board of Directors approved, and
the Company entered into a reclassification agreement with RMS
Limited Partnership ("RMS"), the controlling stockholder of the
Company's Class B shares (the "Reclassification Agreement"). The
Reclassification Agreement provides that, at the Effective Time,
as defined in the Agreement, following the satisfaction of the
conditions thereto, each share of Class B Common Stock issued and
outstanding immediately prior to the Effective Time will be
reclassified and exchanged into 1.31 shares of Class A Common
Stock, with a right to cash in lieu of fractional shares (the
"Reclassification").

In October 2016, the Company entered into a Reimbursement
Agreement with RMS (the "Reimbursement Agreement"). The Company
agreed to reimburse RMS (together with its officers, directors,
employees, beneficiaries, trustees, representatives and
agents)("Reimbursed Persons") for reasonable and documented fees
and out-of-pocket expenses of RMS's financial, legal and public
relations advisors incurred in evaluating and negotiating the
Reclassification. In addition, the Company agreed to reimburse the
Reimbursed Persons for (i) reasonable costs and expenses incurred
in connection with any Proceeding (as defined in the Reimbursement
Agreement) to which such Reimbursed Person is a party or otherwise
involved in and (ii) any losses, damages or liabilities actually
and reasonably suffered or incurred in any such Proceeding by a
Reimbursed Person.

The Company, certain current and former members of the Board, RMS,
Limited Partnership and certain members of the Bruce Ratner,
Miller and Shafran families are named as defendants in a putative
class action and derivative lawsuit brought by purported Class A
stockholders on behalf of a putative class of Class A stockholders
as well as on behalf of the Company challenging the proposed
Reclassification.  The Plaintiffs seek, among other things, to
enjoin the completion of the Reclassification on the terms
described in this proxy statement/prospectus and other monetary
and equitable relief. The outcome of such litigation is uncertain.

If a dismissal is not granted or a settlement is not reached, this
litigation could prevent or delay completion of the
Reclassification and result in substantial costs to the Company.
Other persons or entities may file additional lawsuits against the
Company, members of the Board, members of the Company's
management, RMS, or members of the Ratner, Miller and Shafran
families in connection with the Reclassification.

Forest City Realty Trust, Inc. principally engages in the
operation, development, management and acquisition of office,
apartment and retail real estate and land throughout the United
States.


FUYAO GLASS: "Staggs" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
JULIA STAGGS, On behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. FUYAO GLASS AMERICA, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00191-TMR (S.D. Ohio, June 2, 2017),
seeks to recover all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act
(Ohio Wage Law), and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant suffered and permitted
Plaintiff Staggs and those similarly situated to work more than 40
hours per workweek, while not compensating them for all such hours
worked over 40 at a rate of at least one and one half times their
regular rate as a result of Defendant's automatic meal break
deduction policy.

The Defendant is a subsidiary of Fuyao Glass Industry Group, Ltd.,
a multinational company that specializes in the manufacture of
automobile safety glass and industrial technical glass.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:


GRUBHUB INC: Seeks Dismissal of TCPA Class Action in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen and Steven Trader, writing for Law360, report that
GrubHub Inc. on May 30 asked an Illinois federal court to toss a
proposed class action alleging the take-out delivery service
repeatedly sent unauthorized texts to both users and non-users,
saying the suit was riddled with fundamental legal flaws.

GrubHub says Nicholas Amodeo's proposed class of all U.S.
residents who received at least one unauthorized text from the
service in the last four years, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, is improper for several reasons.

First, GrubHub says, it's a "classic 'fail-sale' class that should
be stricken," because the use of the word "unauthorized" in the
proposed class definition means that, under the terms of the TCPA,
anyone who fell within the class would automatically win on the
merits.  "Fail safe" class definitions have been prohibited by
Seventh Circuit precedent, GrubHub says.

"A class member either wins by showing that he or she received an
'unauthorized' text or, by virtue of losing, is defined out of the
class and is therefore not bound by the judgment," GrubHub wrote
in its motion to dismiss.

Mr. Amodeo, a Colorado resident, filed the suit in February,
saying he began receiving a steady stream of texts from GrubHub
last year.  The texts said his food was nearly done, but he'd
never signed up for GrubHub and hadn't ordered anything through
the service.

The texts arrived at inconvenient times and "drained plaintiff's
phone battery and caused plaintiff additional electricity expenses
and wear and tear on his phone and battery," Mr. Amodeo wrote in
his complaint.

GrubHub says his proposed class is also improper because
Mr. Amodeo only alleges he received "wrong number" texts from
GrubHub.  That makes him unable to represent other GrubHub
customers that consented to receive texts from the service but
then subsequently opted out, as he seeks to do.

"Plaintiff here is not typical of these Grubhub customers and
cannot represent them in a putative class action," GrubHub wrote,
citing an earlier Seventh Circuit case where a proposed class
definition had been pared back for the same reason.

GrubHub says the class is also impermissibly overbroad because it
would sweep in users who have consented to binding arbitration
agreements with class action waivers. Users enter into those
agreements when they sign up for the service and "each time they
place" a food delivery, GrubHub says.

For those and other reasons, "plaintiff's putative class
allegations suffer from a number of flaws that render them
incapable of being certified," GrubHub wrote.

GrubHub was hit with a similar suit last year, Victoria Flores v.
GrubHub Inc., in Illinois state court, which was later removed to
district court. That suit settled before a motion to dismiss was
filed, but the terms of the settlement aren't discussed in court
documents.

GrubHub also agreed to pay roughly $2 million to settle TCPA
claims in 2014, although that suit concerned junk faxes.

Neither party responded to requests for comment on May 31.

Mr. Amodeo is represented by Sergei Lemberg of Lemberg Law LLC and
Katherine Ann Rehan, Esq.

GrubHub is represented by Henry Pietrkowski --
hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP.

The case is Nicholas Amodeo v. GrubHub Inc., case number 1:17-cv-
01284, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. [GN]


GRUMPY GROUPER: "Worley" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER WORLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRUMPY GROUPER SALOON LP, the
Defendant Case No. 1:17-cv-00534 (W.D. Tex., June 2, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a resident of Travis
County, Texas, and was employed by Defendant within the meaning of
the FLSA during the three-year period preceding the filing of this
action. The Plaintiff Heather was employed with Defendant as a
Manager. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. However, Plaintiff did not receive overtime pay for all
hours worked at the minimum wage and for hours worked in excess of
40 at a rate of time and one-half as required by the FLSA.

Grumpy Grouper owns and operates a restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Faces Child Protection Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
KSTP-TV FCC reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed in
U.S. District Court on behalf of 10 minors against Hennepin County
and seven county and state officials, citing the county's
inability to protect abused and neglected children.

The lawsuit defends two classes of children who have, "suffered
harm or risk of harm caused by the systemic failures of Hennepin
County and responsible Hennepin County and State of Minnesota
officials in implementing its child protection system."

The suit claims the county has failed to investigate reports that
children have been abused or neglected, provide appropriate
services to children and their families and provide safe and
appropriate foster care placements for children.

The lawsuit filed by Faegre Baker Daniels LLP says, "Hennepin
County is failing o live up to its responsibilities, and
Defendants have long been aware that its child protection system
has devolved into a confusing, underfunded and erratic system that
inflicts harm on the children it serves."

The lawsuit says since 2015, the county has increased the number
of children who are removed from their homes and the number of
children who are available for adaption.  The suit goes on to say
during that time shelters, foster care placements and adoptive
homes have not increased.

The suit also claims the county has failed to investigate reports
of abuse or neglect, and investigations that are conducted often
go incomplete.

The defendants listed in the case include Hennepin County; David
Hough, Hennepin County Administrator; Jennifer Decubellis,
Hennepin County Deputy Administrator for Health and Human
Services; Jodi Wentland, Hennepin County Director of Human
Services; Janine Moore, Director of Hennepin County Child and
Family Services; Emily Piper, Commissioner of the Minnesota
Department of Human Services; James G. Koppel, Assistant
Commissioner of the Children and Family Services Administration
and Jamie Sorenson, Director of Child Safety and permanency
Division of the Minnesota Department of Human Services.

Carolyn Marinan, the county's public relations officer, said the
county could not comment on pending litigation.

"What we can say is that we are committed to child well-being and
families," she said in a statement. [GN]


HISPANIC HOUSING: Faces "Hill" Suit Over Security Deposit Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothiene M. Hill, individually and on behalf of herself and all
those similarly situated v. Hispanic Housing Development
Corporation, HHDC-Damen Court LLC, Damen Court Preservation LP,
Damen Court Preservation, NFP, Hispanic Elderly Housing
Corporation, Sacramento Elderly Housing Corp., Garfield Asset
Management Ltd., Evergreen Real Estate Services Management, and
Damen Courts Apartments, Case No. 2017-CH-07774 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
June 1, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay interest on security deposits; to disclose the name and
address of the financial institution where the security deposits
were being held; and to attach or provide a Residential Landlord
Tenant Ordinance summary upon leasing and renewal.

The Defendants operate an apartment complex in 2010, 2040, and
2050 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60612. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander S. Michalakos, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER S. MICHALAKOS, P.C.
      1410 W. Higgins Rd., Suite 204
      Park Ridge, IL 60068
      Telephone: (847) 292-9990
      Facsimile: (312) 268-5093
      E-mail: alex@parkridgelawyer.net


HSBC FINANCE: Dropped as Defendant in "Monteleone" TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance 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 HSBC Finance
Corporation is no longer a defendant in the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act Litigation.

In March 2017, the putative class action Monteleone v. HSBC
Finance Corporation, et al. was dismissed and consolidated with
another putative class action pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California and an amended complaint
has been filed. Ahmed and Monteleone v. HSBC Bank USA, National
Association and PHH Mortgage Corporation (Case 5:16-cv-02057). The
new putative class action does not name HSBC Finance Corporation
as a defendant.


INOVALON HOLDINGS: Pre-Motion Process Pending in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Inovalon Holdings, 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's pre-
motion process required prior to filing a motion to dismiss is
ongoing in a consolidated class action lawsuit.

On June 24, 2016, a purported securities class action complaint
(Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et.al., No. 1:16-cv-04923) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, certain officers,
directors and underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering (the "Complaint"). The Complaint was brought on behalf of
a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased shares of the Company's Class A common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement relating to the Company's
initial public offering on February 18, 2015. The Complaint
asserted violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions
with respect to, among other things, the Company's revenues from
sales in the city and state of New York and the Company's
effective tax rate. The Complaint sought certification as a class
action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees.

On June 28, 2016, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the
same court captioned Patel v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et. al.,
No. 1:16-cv-05065.

On July 5, 2016, the court consolidated the Xiang and Patel
actions.

On September 20, 2016, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel. On December 21, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint")
purporting to assert violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on allegedly
false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to
substantially the same topics as alleged in the Complaint.

On February 21, 2017, and as required by the court's individual
practices, the Company invoked the pre-motion process required
prior to filing a motion to dismiss, which process is ongoing.

The Company believes that the claims against it and its officers
and directors are without merit, and the Company and the named
officers and directors intend to defend themselves vigorously. In
light of, among other things, the early stage of the litigation,
the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these consolidated
actions and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome.

Inovalon is a technology company providing cloud-based platforms
empowering a data-driven transformation from volume-based to
value-based models throughout the healthcare industry.


INTEC COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Silva" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY SILVA, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. INTEC COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00173 (S.D. Tex., June 2, 2017), seeks
to recover overtime compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant required Cindy Silva to
work more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime
compensation. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other
similarly situated workers throughout the United States for all
overtime hours worked as required under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-
exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of
forty in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rates
of pay.

INTEC is doing business in the telecommunications industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com


INTRAWEST RESORTS: Sued Over Proposed Hawk Holding Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Edward Hyden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Intrawest Resorts Holdings, Inc., Wesley R. Edens,
Thomas F. Marano, Richard Armstrong, William J. Clifford, Richard
E. Georgi, John W. Harris III, and Timothy Jay, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01337 (D. Colo., June 2, 2017), is brought on behalf of all public
holders of the common stock of Intrawest Resorts Holdings, Inc.,
to enjoin the proposed merger between Intrawest and Hawk Holding
Company, LLC, Hawk Holding Company, Inc., and Hawk Merger Sub,
Inc., for $23.75 in cash for each share.

According to the complaint, Intrawest filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, which contains materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning: (i) financial projections for the Company;
and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisors, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ("Deutsche
Bank") and Moelis & Company LLC ("Moelis"), in support of their
fairness opinions.

Intrawest Resorts Holdings, Inc. is a North American mountain
resort and adventure company, delivering distinctive vacation and
travel experiences to its customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 971-1341
      Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
      E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

         - and -

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson Jr., Esq.
      685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
              jwilson@faruqilaw.com


JB MEDICAL: "Schwanke" Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lawrence E. Schwanke, D.C., doing
business as: Back to Basics Family Chiropractic, a Florida
resident individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. JB Medical
Management Solutions, Inc., McKesson Corporation, and John Does
1-10, Case No. 2:17-mc-00043, was transferred on June 2, 2017 from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(Ocala).  The Florida Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:17-mc-00006-WTH-PRL to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Senior Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges.

JB Medical offers accounting and bookkeeping services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Denise L Diaz, Esq.
          DIAZ LAW
          26632 Town Centre Drive Suite 300
          Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
          Telephone: (650) 208 0193
          Facsimile: (650) 644 0490
          E-mail: denise@diaz-law.com

               - and -

          James M. Smith, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          25 E. Washington St., Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602

McKesson Corporation is represented by:

          Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP-SAN FRANCISCO
          425 Market St
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268 7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268 7522
          E-mail: TCheung@mofo.com


JIVE SOFTWARE: Gusinsky Trust Challenges Wave Systems Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
THE VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REV. TRUST, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the 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, AUREA, INC., ESW CAPITAL, LLC, WAVE
SYSTEMS CORP., and JAZZ MERGERSUB, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
5:17-cv-02836-LHK (N.D. Cal., May 17, 2017), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed merger
transaction, and in the event defendants consummate the proposed
transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 1,
2017, pursuant to which Jive Software, Inc. will be acquired by
affiliates of Aurea, Inc. and ESW Capital, LLC.

On April 30, 2017, Jive's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Wave Systems Corp.
and Jazz MergerSub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Aurea commenced a tender offer, set to expire on June
9, 2017, and stockholders of Jive will receive $5.25 in cash for
each share of Jive common stock. On May 12, 2017, defendants filed
a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Solicitation Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections
14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Solicitation Statement.

Jive provides industry-leading Interactive Intranet and Customer
Community solutions that connect people, information, and ideas to
help businesses outpace their competitors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juno 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 defendants' motion
to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit remains
pending.

Beginning on July 12, 2016, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed against the Company and several of its
officers. On October 7, 2016, these complaints were consolidated
into a single action titled "In re Juno Therapeutics, Inc." On
October 19, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff.  On
December 12, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The putative class in the amended complaint is composed of all
purchasers of the Company's securities between May 9, 2016 and
November 22, 2016, inclusive. The amended complaint names as
defendants the Company, its chief executive officer, its chief
financial officer, and its chief medical officer and generally
alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in public
statements regarding patient deaths in the Company's Phase II
clinical trial of JCAR015 and the safety of JCAR015, violations by
all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20 (a) of
the Exchange Act by the individual defendants. The amended
complaint seeks compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount.

On February 2, 2017, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 20, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On April
19, 2017, the Company and the individual defendants filed a reply
in support of the motion to dismiss.

The Company has not recorded any liability as of March 31, 2017
since any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable
given the preliminary nature of the proceedings.

Juno is building a fully-integrated biopharmaceutical company
focused on developing innovative cellular immunotherapies for the
treatment of cancer. Founded on the vision that the use of human
cells as therapeutic entities will drive one of the next important
phases in medicine, the Company is developing cell-based cancer
immunotherapies based on its CAR and high-affinity TCR
technologies to genetically engineer T cells to recognize and kill
cancer cells.


KATE SPADE: "Steinberg" Suit Challenges Coach Merger
----------------------------------------------------
CHAILE STEINBERG, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KATE SPADE & COMPANY, NANCY J.
KARCH, LAWRENCE S. BENJAMIN, RAUL J. FERNANDEZ, CARSTEN FISCHER,
KENNETH B. GILMAN, KENNETH P. KOPELMAN, CRAIG A. LEAVITT, DEBORAH
LLOYD, DOUGLAS MACK, JAN SINGER, DOREEN A. TOBEN, COACH, INC., and
CHELSEA MERGER SUB INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04155
(S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed merger transaction, in the
event defendants consummate the proposed transaction, rescinding
it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 8,
2017, pursuant to which Kate Spade & Company will be acquired by
Coach, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Chelsea Merger Sub
Inc. On May 7, 2017, Kate Spade's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Coach commenced a tender offer
on May 26, 2017 to acquire all of Kate Spade's outstanding stock
for $18.50 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is currently set to
expire on June 23, 2017. On May 26, 2017, defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Solicitation
Statement") with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission, which recommends that Kate Spade's stockholders
approve the Proposed Transaction and tender their shares in the
Tender Offer. The Solicitation Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading.

Kate Spade, initially known as Liz Claiborne Inc., and then as
Fifth & Pacific Companies until February 25, 2014, is a fashion
company that designs and markets a range of women's and men's.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683 3516
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310


KC LODGE: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, "Enegren" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Enegren, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KC Lodge Ventures LLC, St. Louis
Lodge Ventures LLC, and PB&J Restaurants, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02285 (D. Kan., May 17, 2017), seeks relief on a
collective basis for Twin Peaks' failure to pay minimum wages in
certain work weeks due to Twin Peaks' tip-sharing requirement.

This case is a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action brought
on behalf of "Twin Peaks Girls" who work or have worked at Twin
Peaks franchise restaurants in Kansas and Missouri. The relevant
Twin Peaks restaurants are owned and operated by KC Lodge
Ventures, LLC, St. Louis Lodge Ventures, LLC, and PB&J
Restaurants, Inc., which operate as an integrated employer
headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas.

According to the complaint, Twin Peaks employs Servers,
Bartenders, and Hostesses, who are subjected to Twin Peaks'
unlawful pay practices. Twin Peaks systematically and willfully
denies Twin Peaks Girls wages due and owing under the FLSA.
Whether pled in the past or present tense, the allegations in this
Complaint should be understood to mean that Twin Peaks has engaged
in these unlawful pay practices during the entire time it has
operated these Twin Peaks franchise restaurants and continues to
do so.

Twin Peaks fails to pay Twin Peaks Girls for all hours worked.
Specifically, Twin Peaks does not pay Twin Peaks Girls for time
attending mandatory pre-shift meetings, time attending mandatory
monthly meetings, and time changing into and out of their uniforms
as required by Twin Peaks. Twin Peaks requires Twin Peaks Girls to
purchase their own uniforms. Twin Peaks' failure to reimburse Twin
Peaks Girls for their uniform expenses constitutes a "kickback" to
Twin Peaks, such that Twin Peaks Girls' net wages are diminished
below the minimum wage. Twin Peaks requires Servers to share their
tips with non-Servers based on a fixed percentage of each Server's
gross sales. As a result of this mandatory tip-sharing, Servers
sometimes do not make enough in tips to satisfy the "tip credit"
claimed by Twin Peaks, such that the hourly wages paid to Twin
Peaks Girls are below the minimum wage. As a result of the
foregoing pay practices, Twin Peaks Girls are illegally
undercompensated for their work, in violation of the FLSA. Alyssa
Enegren brings this collective action on behalf of all similarly
situated persons.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Boyd A. Byers, Esq.
          Paige D. Pippin, Esq.
          FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
          1551 North Waterfront Pkwy, Ste. 100
          Wichita, Kansas 67206-4466
          Telephone: 316-267-6371
          Facsimile: 316-267-6345
          E-mail: bbyers@foulston.com
                  ppippin@foulston.com

               - and -

          Tony F. Rupp, Esq.
          9225 Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 600
          Overland Park, KS 66210-2000
          Telephone: (913) 498 2100
          Facsimile: (913) 498 2101
          E-mail: trupp@foulston.com


KCG HOLDINGS: Faces "Greenway" Suit Over Orchestra Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Herbert A. Greenway, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of KCG Holdings, Inc. v. KCG Holdings, Inc.,
Debra J. Chrapaty, Daniel Coleman, Peter R. Fisher, Charles E.
Haldeman, Jr., Rene M. Kern, James T. Milde, John C. (Hans)
Morris, Alastair Rampell, Daniel F. Schmitt, Laurie M. Shahon,
Colin Smith, Heather E. Tookes, Adrian Weller, Virtu Finanical,
Inc., Orchestra Merger Sub, Inc. and Jefferies LLC, Case No. 2017-
0421 (Del. Ch. Ct., June 2, 2017), arises from the proposed merger
of KCG and Orchestra, a wholly owned subsidiary of Virtu
Financial, whereby KCG stockholders will be cashed out for $20 per
share in cash.

According to the complaint, KCG Holdings filed a Preliminary Proxy
Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that
fails to disclose: (a) two material transactions with the
Company's largest stockholders (i.e., the General Atlantic Buyout
and the November 30, 2016 Jefferies Standstill) that occurred only
months before announcement of, and paved the way for, the Proposed
Transaction; and (b) a description of Jefferies' role as an
advisor to the Company on potential non-merger restructuring
transactions, a role that Jefferies occupied at the same time it
arranged a sale of the Company to Virtu. Without disclosure of
this material information, KCG stockholders are being deprived of
their right to cast a fully informed vote on the Proposed
Transaction.

KCG Holdings, Inc. is an American global financial services firm
engaging in market making, high-frequency trading, electronic
execution, and institutional sales and trading. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
      Paul A. Fioravanti Jr., Esq.
      Kevin H. Davenport, Esq.
      Samuel L. Closic, Esq.
      PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
      1310 N. King Street
      Wilmington, DL 19801
      Telephone: (302) 888-6500
      E-mail: mhanrahan@prickett.com
              pafioravanti@prickett.com
              khdavenport@prickett.com
              slclosic@prickett.com

         - and -

     Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
     J. Daniel Albert, Esq.
     Stacey A. Greenspan, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Telephone: (610) 667-7706
     E-mail: ezagar@ktmc.com
             dalbert@ktmc.com
             sgreenspan@ktmc.com

        - and -

     Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
     Spencer Oster, Esq.
     David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
     FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL, PLLC
     240 East 79th Street, Suite A
     New York, NY, 10075
     Telephone: (888) 529-1108
     E-mail: jfriedman@fotpllc.com
             soster@fotpllc.com
             dtejtel@fotpllc.com


KEMPER SPORTS: Faces "Lall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Lall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kemper Sports Management, Inc. and The Village Club of
Sands Point, Case No. 700853/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 1, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant, lodging and
recreational facilities in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 355-9668
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


KEYSTONE CUSTOM: Faces Jaspen Suit in Penn. Ct. of Common Pleas
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keystone Custom
Homes. The case is captioned as JASPEN INC, the Plaintiff v.
KEYSTONE CUSTOM HOMES, the Defendant, Case No. CI-17-05267 (Pa.
Ct. of Common Pleas, June 2, 2017).

Keystone Custom is a home builder company.[BN]


LA QUINTA: Motion to Dismiss "Beisel" Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
La Quinta Holdings 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 class action lawsuit, Beisel v. La Quinta
Holdings Inc. et al.

On April 25, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Beisel v. La Quinta Holdings Inc. et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant to the
Company's March 24, 2015 secondary public offering (the "March
Secondary Offering") and on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from November 19, 2014 through October 29, 2015 (the
"Class Period").

On July 22, 2016, the court appointed lead plaintiff, and on
September 30, 2016, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, certain
current and former Company officers, and certain current and
former members of the Board of Directors, among others.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that, in violation of the
federal securities laws, the registration statement and prospectus
filed in connection with the March Secondary Offering contained
materially false and misleading information or omissions and that
the Company as well as certain current and former officers made
false and misleading statements in earnings releases and to
analysts during the Class Period.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

On May 2, 2017, a Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of a Motion
to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was filed by Glenn Alba,
Alan J. Bowers, Henry G. Cisneros, Keith A. Cline, Giovanni
Cutaia, James H. Forson, Wayne B. Goldberg, J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC, Brian Kim, La Quinta Holdings Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
Michael Nash, Mitesh B. Shah, Gary M. Sumers, The Blackstone Group
L.P.

The Company believes that the putative class action lawsuit is
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously;
however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome
of this lawsuit.

La Quinta is an owner, operator and franchisor of select-service
hotels primarily serving the midscale and upper-midscale segments
under the La Quinta brand. All new franchised hotels in the U.S.
and Canada are La Quinta Inn & Suites.


LDRV HOLDINGS: "Slanga" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL V. SLANGA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LDRV HOLDINGS CORP, d/b/a LAZY DAYS,
and WILLIAM P. MURNAME, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01220-
MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla., May 22, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation owed to Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated who are or were employed by Defendants and were subject
to the same unlawful pay practices, under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants from July 2016 through March 31, 2017 as a Service
Advisor. During this time period, Defendants failed to pay any
overtime compensation to Plaintiff or other similarly situated
Service Advisors. Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA
because Plaintiff, and other similarly situated Service Advisors,
were regularly required to work in excess of 40 hours a workweek
were not paid overtime compensation as required by the FLSA. The
Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA because Plaintiff, and
other similarly situated employees, were not paid the federally-
mandated minimum wage, as required by the FLSA.

The Defendant is a recreational vehicle retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
          Jason M. Melton, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          One Progress Plaza
          200 Central Avenue, No. 400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 822 1111
          Facsimile: (727) 898 2001
          E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
                  lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
                  sonia@theFLlawfirm.com


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Must Face Investors' Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on May 31 disclosed
that a lawsuit was filed against LendingClub Corporation (NYSE:
LC) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California in May 2016, alleging that the company misled investors
about its compliance practices.  On
May 27, 2017, the court denied LendingClub's motion to dismiss the
case, noting that investors had adequately pointed out misleading
elements of LendingClub's registration statement, including
supposed weaknesses in its financial reporting and poor data
integrity protocols, among other things.  LendingClub, together
with its subsidiaries, operates as an online marketplace that
connects borrowers and investors in the United States.

View this press release on the firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/lendingclub

LendingClub Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

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


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Cost of Insurance Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation continues to defend the Cost of
Insurance Litigation, Lincoln 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.

In re:  Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.  In addition to
consolidating a number of existing matters, the order also covers
any future filed cases in the same district related to the same
subject matter.  Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies
originally issued by Jefferson Pilot (now Lincoln).  Plaintiffs
allege that The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company breached
the terms of policyholders' contracts when it increased non-
guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016.  Plaintiffs
seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek damages on
their behalf.

"We are vigorously defending this matter," the Company said.

Lincoln National is a holding company that operates multiple
insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary companies.


MARKET AMERICA: Faces Racketeering Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
two distributors for Market America claim the company's $7.3
billion valuation comes from millions of people who have lost
money after enrolling in the pyramid scheme, including Chinese-
Americans whom the company targets to sell products to relatives
in Asia.

Chaunjie Yang and Ollie Lan sued Market America and its founders
James Howard Ridinger, Loren Ridinger, and president and COO Marc
Ashley in a federal class action on May 30.

The racketeering lawsuit says that while the executives tell
distributors they can earn more than $560,000, only those at the
top make that kind of money. Ninety percent of sellers do not
receive a penny, according to the lawsuit.

"According to Market America, the only way to fail under Market
America's business model is to quit.  Meanwhile, Market America
and its confederate conspirators now assert a business valuation
of $7.3 billion that they have made off the backs of millions of
people in their pyramid," the class claims in the lawsuit.

Yang says he handed over $35,000 to Market America and eventually
lost money in the venture.  He says in the lawsuit that people
enrolling in the scheme have to pay a $399 startup fee and $129 a
month.

Market America requires distributors to invest between $130 and
$200 each month on third-party retail products. Distributors pay
to participate in training workshops, events and seminars,
including flashy pyrotechnic events hosted by Ashley and the
Ridingers, the lawsuit says.

The company targets Chinese-American immigrants, a vulnerable
population who sometimes do not have the resources to defend
themselves legally, the distributors say.  Market America targets
Chinese-Americans because it wants distributors to sell products
to their family members in China.

"Further, these connections help Market America connect to
billions of potential victims thousands of miles away," the 46-
page lawsuit states.

Yan and Lan say that like hundreds of thousands Market America
lured into the scheme, they did not make any money despite their
hard work.

Their lawsuit says 90 percent of distributors lose money in the
scheme that rewards distribution for recruiting other
distributors, rather than selling products.  Through the website
Shop.com, Market America offers various third-party retail goods
including apparel, food, electronics and beauty products.

According to the plaintiffs, the company faced a 2012 class action
claiming some of its products contained lead. Lan says his mother
became ill after she was exposed to Market America's products.

The complaint seeks a ruling that the arbitration provision in
agreements distributors sign with Market America is unenforceable.
They also seek restitution, damages, costs and an injunction for
unfair and deceptive practices, false advertising, Racketeer-
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act violations, and federal
securities fraud.

Yan and Lan are represented by Blake Lindemann of Beverly Hills,
California

Market America did not immediately respond to an emailed request
for comment. [GN]


MDL 2179: Cases v. Ecolab over Deepwater Oil Spill Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab, Inc. continues to defend matters related to Deepwater
Horizon Incident Response, Ecolab 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 April 22, 2010, the deepwater drilling platform, the Deepwater
Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP plc, sank in the Gulf of
Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began on April
20, 2010. A massive oil spill resulted. Approximately one week
following the incident, subsidiaries of BP plc, under the
authorization of the responding federal agencies, formally
requested Nalco Company, now an indirect subsidiary of Ecolab, to
supply large quantities of COREXIT(R) 9500, a Nalco oil dispersant
product listed on the U.S. EPA National Contingency Plan Product
Schedule. Nalco Company responded immediately by providing
available COREXIT and increasing production to supply the product
to BP's subsidiaries for use, as authorized and directed by
agencies of the federal government throughout the incident. Prior
to the incident, Nalco and its subsidiaries had not provided
products or services or otherwise had any involvement with the
Deepwater Horizon platform. On July 15, 2010, BP announced that it
had capped the leaking well, and the application of dispersants by
the responding parties ceased shortly thereafter.

On May 1, 2010, the President appointed retired U.S. Coast Guard
Commandant Admiral Thad Allen to serve as the National Incident
Commander in charge of the coordination of the response to the
incident at the national level. The EPA directed numerous tests of
all the dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product
Schedule, including those provided by Nalco Company, "to ensure
decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico are
grounded in the best available science." Nalco Company cooperated
with this testing process and continued to supply COREXIT, as
requested by BP and government authorities. The use of dispersants
by the responding parties was one tool used by the government and
BP to avoid and reduce damage to the Gulf area from the spill.

In connection with its provision of COREXIT, Nalco Company has
been named in several lawsuits as described below.

Cases arising out of the Deepwater Horizon accident were
administratively transferred for pre-trial purposes to a judge in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana with other related cases under In Re: Oil Spill by the
Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20,
2010, Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) ("MDL 2179"). Nalco Company
was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in six
putative class action complaints related to the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill and 21 complaints filed by individuals.  Those
complaints were consolidated in MDL 2179.  The complaints
generally allege, among other things, strict liability and
negligence relating to the use of our Corexit dispersant in
connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Pursuant to orders issued by the Court in MDL 2179, the claims
were consolidated in several master complaints, including one
naming Nalco Company and others who responded to the Gulf Oil
Spill (known as the "B3 Master Complaint"). On May 18, 2012, Nalco
filed a motion for summary judgment against the claims in the B3
Master Complaint, on the grounds that: (i) Plaintiffs' claims are
preempted by the comprehensive oil spill response scheme set forth
in the Clean Water Act and National Contingency Plan; and (ii)
Nalco is entitled to derivative immunity from suit. On November
28, 2012, the Court granted Nalco's motion and dismissed with
prejudice the claims in the "B3" Master Complaint asserted against
Nalco. The Court held that such claims were preempted by the Clean
Water Act and National Contingency Plan. Because claims in the
"B3" Master Complaint remained pending against other defendants,
the Court's decision was not a "final judgment" for purposes of
appeal. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), plaintiffs
will have 30 days after entry of final judgment to appeal the
Court's decision.

In December 2012 and January 2013, the MDL 2179 court issued final
orders approving two settlements between BP and Plaintiffs' Class
Counsel: (1) a proposed Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement;
and (2) a proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action
Settlement. Pursuant to the proposed settlements, class members
agree to release claims against BP and other released parties,
including Nalco Company and its related entities.

Nalco Company, the incident defendants and the other responder
defendants have been named as first party defendants by Transocean
Deepwater Drilling, Inc. and its affiliates (the "Transocean
Entities") (In re the Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset
Leasing GmbH, et al, MDL No. 2179, Civil Action 10-2771).

In April and May 2011, the Transocean Entities, Cameron
International Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., M-I
L.L.C., Weatherford U.S., L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc.
(collectively, the "Cross Claimants") filed cross claims in MDL
2179 against Nalco Company and other unaffiliated cross
defendants. The Cross Claimants generally allege, among other
things, that if they are found liable for damages resulting from
the Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response,
they are entitled to indemnity or contribution from the cross
defendants.

In April and June 2011, in support of its defense of the claims
against it, Nalco Company filed counterclaims against the Cross
Claimants. In its counterclaims, Nalco Company generally alleges
that if it is found liable for damages resulting from the
Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, it
is entitled to contribution or indemnity from the Cross Claimants.

In May 2016, Nalco was named in nine additional complaints filed
by individuals alleging, among other things, business and economic
loss resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  In April
2017, Nalco was named in two additional complaints filed by
individuals seeking, among other things, business and economic
loss resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits are generally seeking awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs. These actions have been consolidated in the MDL and the
Company expects they will be dismissed pursuant to the Court's
November 28, 2012 order granting Nalco's motion for summary
judgment.

On February 22, 2017, the Court dismissed the "B3" Master
Complaint and ordered that Plaintiffs who had previously filed a
claim that fell within the scope of the "B3" Master Complaint and
who had "opted out" of and not released their claims under the
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement either: (1) complete a
sworn statement indicating, among other things, that they opted
out of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement (to be
completed by Plaintiffs who previously filed an individual
complaint); or (2) file an individual lawsuit attaching the sworn
statement as an exhibit, by a deadline date set by the Court. The
Court will then determine which "B3" Plaintiffs are entitled to
pursue their claims and the procedures for addressing those
claims.

The Company believes the claims asserted against Nalco Company are
without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. The
Company also believes that it has rights to contribution and/or
indemnification (including legal expenses) from third parties.
However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits,
the involvement it might have in these matters in the future, or
the potential for future litigation.


MDL 2566: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Suit
--------------------------------------------
Total System 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 in the case, IN RE
TELEXFREE SEC. LITIG., MDL No. 4:14-md-2566-TSH (D. Mass. Mar. 10,
2015), the lead plaintiffs have moved the court for leave to
further amend the Second Amended Complaint, and submitted a
proposed amendment with their motion.

ProPay, Inc. (ProPay), a subsidiary of the Company, has been named
as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant
processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to
the activities of TelexFree, Inc. and its affiliates and
principals. TelexFree is a former merchant customer of ProPay.
With regard to TelexFree, each purported class action lawsuit
generally alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier
marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone
services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action
complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor
defendants, including ProPay, aided and abetted the improper
activities of TelexFree.

TelexFree filed for bankruptcy protection in Nevada. The
bankruptcy proceeding was subsequently transferred to the
Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court.

Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of
defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the
following purported class action complaints relating to TelexFree:
(i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No.
BK-S-14-12524-ABL) filed on May 3, 2014 in the United States
Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada, (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al.
v. TelexFree, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) filed on May
15, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of
Massachusetts, (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v.
Telexelectric, LLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) filed on
June 5, 2014 in the United States District Court of North
Carolina, (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No.
2:14-CV-00134), filed on June 24, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, (v) Felicia
Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG),
filed on June 27, 2014 in the United State District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, and (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere,
et al. v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO),
filed on June 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (together, the "Actions").

On October 21, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred and consolidated the Actions before the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(the "Consolidated Action").

Following the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's October
21, 2014 order, four additional cases arising from the alleged
TelexFree scheme were transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts for coordinated or
consolidated proceedings, including (i) Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et
al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et al. (Case No. 14-04080); (ii) Magalhaes
v. TelexFree, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-12437 (D. Mass.); (iii)
Griffith v. Merrill et al., No. 14-CV-12058 (D. Mass.); Abelgadir
v. Telexelectric, LLP, No. 14-09857 (S.D.N.Y.) In addition, on
September 23, 2015, a putative class action relating to TelexFree
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona, styled Rita Dos Santos, Putative Class Representatives
and those Similarly Situated v. TelexElectric, LLP et al., 2:15-
cv-01906-NVW (the "Arizona Action").

The Arizona Action makes claims similar to those alleged in the
consolidated action pending before the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On September 29, 2015, a group of certain defendants to the
Consolidated Action, including ProPay, filed a "tag along" notice
with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, asking that
the Arizona Action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts
where it can be consolidated or coordinated with the Consolidated
Action. On October 20, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the Arizona Action to the District of
Massachusetts.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel on behalf of the putative class
of plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.

On March 31, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated
Amended Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated
Complaint purports to bring claims on behalf of all persons who
purchased certain TelexFree "memberships" and suffered a "net
loss" between January 1, 2012 and April 16, 2014. The Consolidated
Complaint supersedes the complaints filed prior to consolidation
of the Actions, and alleges that ProPay aided and abetted tortious
acts committed by TelexFree, and that ProPay was unjustly enriched
in the course of providing payment processing services to
TelexFree.

On April 30, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), which amends
and supersedes the Consolidated Complaint. Like the Consolidated
Complaint, the Second Amended Complaint generally alleges that
ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by TelexFree, and
that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of providing
payment processing services to TelexFree.

Several defendants, including ProPay, moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on June 2, 2015.Briefing on those motions closed
on October 16, 2015. The court held a hearing on the motions to
dismiss on November 2, 2015.

At present, pursuant to a court order, all discovery in the action
is stayed pending the resolution of parallel criminal proceedings
against certain former principals of TelexFree, Inc.

On April 4, 2017, lead plaintiffs moved the court for leave to
further amend the Second Amended Complaint, and submitted a
proposed amendment with their motion. The proposed amendment seeks
to add new defendants to the case but does not make any new or
additional allegations against ProPay.  ProPay, along with certain
other defendants in the litigation, have not opposed the lead
plaintiffs' motion to further amend the Second Amended Complaint
so long as the amendment, if allowed by the court, would not delay
the court's decision on the pending motions to dismiss.  Lead
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend is pending before the court.
The court was scheduled to hold a status conference for May 17,
2017.

Total System Services, Inc.'s revenues are derived from providing
payment processing, merchant services and related payment services
to financial and nonfinancial institutions, generally under long-
term processing contracts. The Company also derives revenues by
providing general-purpose reloadable (GPR) prepaid debit cards and
payroll cards and alternative financial services to underbanked
consumers. The Company's services are provided through three
operating segments: Issuer Solutions, Merchant Solutions and
Netspend.


MDL 2724: Fraternal Order Class Suit Consolidated in MDL
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Fraternal Order of Police,
Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Lannett
Company, Inc., and Epic Pharma, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-02492-CMR is
consolidated in the multidistrict litigation In re: Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724.

The actions in the litigation arises from the Defendants'
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of
generic Ursodiol capsules ("Ursodiol") in the United States during
the period of May 9, 2014 through the present or the date on which
the anticompetitive effects subside.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
      SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      35 East State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Telephone: (610) 891-9880
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com
              nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      Paul Costa, Esq.
      Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
      One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
              pcosta@finekaplan.com
              apessin@finekaplan.com

         - and -

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY  10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail:  gasciolla@labaton.com


MDL 2787: Herlihy et al. Ask Panel to Transfer Related Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: Fyre Festival Litigation, Movants Matthew
Herlihy and Anthony Lauriello, the named plaintiffs in the case
captioned Herlihy, et al. v. William McFarland, et al. (Case No.
1:17-cv-3296, S.D.N.Y., filed May 3, 2017), move the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for an Order transferring
related actions in the schedule of related actions filed, to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
for coordinated or consolidated proceedings.

To date, six putative class actions have been filed in four
different jurisdictions, each alleging that defendants falsely and
misleadingly promoted the "Fyre Festival" as blending music, art,
and food on a private Bahamian island with luxury accommodations
when in fact, participants were basically left stranded in an
undeveloped area where there was no security, medical staff, much
less musical guests or any of the other promised activities.
Based on this deception, plaintiffs in the Related Actions allege
violations of common laws and state consumer protection laws.

The Related Actions include:

     a. Herlihy, et al. v. William McFarland, et al. (Case No.
1:17-cv-3296, S.D.N.Y);

     b. Daly, et al. v. Billy McFarland, et al. (Case No. 1:17-cv-
3461, S.D.N.Y.);

     c. Jutla v. Fyre Media, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:17-cv-3541,
S.D.N.Y.);

     d. Jung v. Billy McFarland, et al. (Case No. 2:17-cv-3245,
C.D. Cal.);

     e. Petrozziello v. Fyre Media, Inc., et al. (Case No. 2:17-
cv-3018, D.N.J.); and

     f. Reel, et al. v. Billy McFarland, et al. (Case No. 1:17-cv-
21683-FAM, S.D. Fla.).

The Related Actions involve one or more common questions of fact,
including, but not limited to, whether defendants made false
representations about the Fyre Festival and whether defendants
engaged in unlawful, unfair or deceptive business practices
relating to the promotion and execution of the Fyre Festival.

Centralization of the Related Actions will eliminate duplicative
discovery, prevent duplicative and conflicting pretrial rulings,
conserve judicial resources, reduce the costs of litigation, and
allow the cases to proceed more efficiently to resolution.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Andrea Clisura, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363 7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363 7171
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com
                  aclisura@zlk.com
                  nkulesa@zlk.com


MONSANTO: Wants Cancer Class Action to Remain in Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
J R Pegg, writing for Agrow, reports that a class action lawsuit
against Monsanto by cancer victims who allege that their illnesses
were caused by exposure to the herbicide, Roundup (glyphosate),
should be heard in US federal court. [GN]


MOVE SALES: Faces "Diresta" Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Move Sales, Inc.
The case is captioned Timothy Diresta, individually and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated v. Move Sales, Inc., Case No.
602704/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 1, 2017).

Headquartered in Santa Clara, California, Move Sales, Inc.
operates a real estate web site. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy D. DiResta, Esq.
      DIRESTA LAW GROUP, PC
      30 W. Park Ave., Suite 301
      Long Beach, NY 11561
      Telephone: (516) 432-0102
      Facsimile: (516) 345-1678
      E-mail: tdiresta@direstalawgroup.com


NASTYGAL.COM: Faces "Bashen" Suit Over False Product Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Bashen, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Nastygal.com USA Inc., Case
No. BC663541 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2017), is an action for
damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' false
representations and misleading statements about their products, as
having a 30 day return policy.

Nastygal.com USA Inc. is in the business of distributing,
marketing, and selling women's clothing and fashion accessories.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com


NEXVET BIOPHARMA: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Zoetis Merger Proxy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. NEXVET BIOPHARMA PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY,
MARK HEFFERNAN, GEORGE GUNN, CHRISTOPHER BROWN, ASHRAF HANNA,
CORMAC KILTY, JOSEPH MCCRACKEN, RAJIV PATEL, and JOHN PAYNE,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-03099 (N.D. Cal., May 30, 2017),
alleges that Nexvet filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A that omits and/or misrepresents material information
concerning a Proposed Transaction pursuant to which Nexvet will be
acquired by Zoetis Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary
Zoetis Belgium S.A.

The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $85 million.

According to the complaint, the Proxy, which recommends that
Nexvet stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
omits and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among
other things: (i) Nexvet's management's projections, utilized by
the Company's financial advisor, Evercore Group L.L.C. in its
financial analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses prepared by
Evercore in connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion;
(iii) material omissions concerning Evercore's potential conflicts
of interest; and (iv) material information concerning the sale
process leading up to the Proposed Transaction.

Nexvet Biopharma Public Limited Company is a clinical-stage
biophannaceutical company in the field of companion animal
therapeutics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: 212/682-3025
     Fax: 212/682-3010


NIGHTCAP INC: "Salvo" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Salvo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NightCap Inc. Food & Spirits d/b/a
Vickery's Shem Creek and Vickery's Glenwood Park; SSWNN Corp.; and
1313 Corp., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01266-RMG (D.S.C.,
May 17, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages, unlawful
deductions, and other wages for Plaintiff and his similarly
situated co-workers -- servers, bartenders, and other "tipped
workers" -- who work or have worked at restaurants owned and/or
operated by Defendants.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and
similarly situated current and former employees who elect to opt
in to this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938. The Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of himself
and similarly situated current and former tipped workers in South
Carolina pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to remedy
violations of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. These
claims are proposed as opt-out class claims under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

According to the complaint, Defendants have deprived Plaintiff and
others similarly situated of their lawfully earned wages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Scott Falls
          Ashley L. Falls
          FALLS LEGAL, LLC
          245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 250
          Charleston, SC 29492
          Telephone: (843) 737 6040
          Facsimile: (843) 737 6140
          E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com
                  ashley@falls-legal.com


NOW HEALTH: Faces "Maniaci" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Now Health Group,
Inc. The case is captioned as Stefania Daidone Maniaci, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Now Health Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02991-JS-
AYS (E.D.N.Y., May 17, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Joanna Seybert.

NOW Health, doing business as NOW Foods, produces and sells
natural products and nutritional supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Gabrielli, Esq.
          GABRIELLI LEVITT LLP
          2426 Eastchester Road, Suite 201
          Bronx, NY 10469
          Telephone: (718) 708 5322
          Facsimile: (708) 708 5966
          E-mail: michael@gabriellilaw.com


PEKELL DELAIRE: Appeals Ct. Clarifies Authority to Settle Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Slocum of The Commercial Bar Association of Victoria, in
an article for Lexology, wrote that the Victorian Court of Appeal
has ruled that a settlement deed containing releases and
acknowledgements beyond the scope of common issues in the Great
Southern class action is binding upon group members, despite the
High Court's holding that representative plaintiffs and group
members are not privies in relation to uncommon issues.

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Pekell Delaire Holdings Pty Ltd
[2017] VSCA 51

A recent case note addressed:

   * the High Court's ruling in Timbercorp that representative
plaintiffs were not privies to group members beyond pleaded common
issues; and

   * how Timbercorp might impact the future conduct and settlement
of group proceedings in Australia.

Since that note, the related "Great Southern" class action has
been revisited by the Victorian Court of Appeal.  In Pekell
Delaire the Court ruled that a settlement deed that contained
releases and acknowledgements that went beyond the scope of the
common issues in the class action was binding on group members.
The deed in question had been approved prior to Timbercorp and the
approval order had not been appealed.

One of the group members disputed the efficacy of the releases and
acknowledgements in the settlement deed in response to a statutory
demand issued by a released financier party.  That group member
relied upon, among other things, the Timbercorp reasoning.  The
Court of Appeal dismissed this challenge, and held that the
settlement deed could bind group members in respect of matters
beyond the common issues because:

   * a settlement approval order under s 33V of the Supreme Court
Act 1986 (Vic) (Act) could, and in this case did, supply the
privity which the High Court had observed was otherwise absent in
respect of the individual claims of group members;

   * as a consequence, the parties could settle a group proceeding
on whatever terms were agreed and approved by the Court; and

   * each of the group members was on notice of the application to
approve the settlement deed, and had the opportunity to opt out of
the group proceeding before approval of the deed.

The Court observed that, as a matter of policy, if group members
were not bound by settlement deeds approved by the Court, there
would be "a remarkable constraint on those negotiating settlements
of group proceedings."

The respondent to the class action (the scheme financier)
separately sought declarations as to the general application of
the settlement deed.  The Court declined to grant that relief, as
it had not been sought in the Court below, the immediate appellant
was not a representative of all group members and other group
members were not properly on notice of the respondent's
application.  As a matter of practicality, however, the Court of
Appeal's decision seems likely to render declaratory relief
unnecessary.

A critical feature in Pekell Delaire was that the order approving
the settlement deed had not been appealed or otherwise challenged.
The decision emphasises the importance of finality in litigation.
The Court's observations as to the ability of a Court order to
supply to a lead plaintiff the privity that Part 4A of the Act
otherwise might not supply, needs to be understood in that
context.  Parties seeking approval of future settlements under
Part 4A must address whether Timbercorp means that an order
approving a settlement deed that strays beyond the common issues
ought to be made in the first place.

Moreover, the reasoning in Pekell Delaire again emphasises the
importance of the anterior notices to, and communications with,
group members regarding the scope of the proceeding and the
content of a proposed settlement. [GN]


PETROSSIAN RESTAURANTS: "Shabu" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AHMED SHABU and PARVEZ LATIF, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PETROSSIAN
RESTAURANTS, INC., PETROSSIAN BOUTIQUE, INC., ARMEN PETROSSIAN,
ARNAUD THIEFFRY, and ALEXANDRE PETROSSIAN, the Defendants, Case
No. 507622/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 2, 2017), seeks to recover
minimum wages, overtime compensation, misappropriated tips,
spread-of-hours pay, and other damages for Plaintiffs and their
similarly situated co-workers -- servers, bartenders, bussers,
barbacks, food runners, and other similarly situated non-
managerial employees (Tipped Workers) -- who work or have worked
at the Petrossian New York Restaurant and the Petrossian Cafe and
Boutique, both located at 182 West 58lh Street, New York, New York
10019.

According to the complaint, throughout Plaintiffs' employment,
Defendants applied a tip credit to Tipped Workers' wages and paid
Tipped Workers a reduced minimum wage rate. Defendants, however
did not satisfy the requirements under the New York Labor Law
(NYLL) or the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by which they could
take a tip credit towards the hourly rates paid to Tipped Workers.
In that regard, Defendants: failed to provide Plaintiffs and other
Tipped Workers with notification of the tipped minimum wage rate
or tip credit provisions of the NYLL or the FLSA, or of their
intent to apply a tip credit to Plaintiffs' and other Tipped
Workers' wages; (b) distributed portions of Plaintiffs' and other
Tipped Workers' tips to workers who are ineligible to receive tips
under the NYLL or FLSA; and (c) failed to furnish Plaintiffs and
other Tipped Workers with accurate wage statements with each
payment of wages. As a result, Defendants are liable to Tipped
Workers for the difference between the full minimum wage rate and
the tipped minimum wage rate paid for all hours worked up to 40
each workweek.

Owned, operated, and controlled by Petrossian Restaurants, Inc.,
Petrossian Boutique, Inc., Armen Petrossian, Amaud Thieffry, and
Alexandre Petrossian, Petrossian restaurants have operated
worldwide for almost a century. Petrossian's restaurants have been
profiled and reviewed in numerous print and online publications,
including, but not limited to, The New York Times, The New York
Post, The Wall Street Journal, CNN.com, "CBS This Morning," and
Gotham Magazine. According to its website,
http://www.petrossian.eom/restaurant.html,Petrossian NY was
founded in 1984 and is owned by the Petrossian family.
Additionally, "it serves a French-influenced contemporary menu
that features the caviar, smoked fish, and foie gras delicacies
for which Petrossian is known throughout the world."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Jeffrey H. Dorfinan, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300 0375

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carolyn D. Richmond, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          100 Park Avenue, Suite 1500
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 878 7983
          E-mail: crichmond@foxrothschild.com


PIERCE MANUFACTURING: Judge Approves "Ehmann" Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
WBAY reports that a federal judge in Green Bay has approved a
settlement agreement in a class action "shaved wages" lawsuit
filed on behalf of 1,426 Pierce Manufacturing production
employees.

Judge William Griesbach on May 31 ordered Pierce Manufacturing,
Inc., an Appleton-based firetruck maker, to pay damages for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws.

Oshkosh Corporation, which owns Pierce, issued a statement on
May 31:

The case Eric Ehmann v. Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., sought damages
for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, and
other fees.

A complaint filed last February by Mr. Ehmann on behalf of the
workers claims Pierce shaved time from production employees' time
sheets by deducting or failing to count at least ten minutes of
time per work day, totaling at least 50 minutes per week.  That 50
minutes should have been counted as overtime.

Mr. Ehmann, an assembly worker, as stated in the complaint, said
he typically worked a 44 hour-and-50-minute work week but was only
paid for the 44 hours.

Employees in this case include assemblers, painters, material
handlers, and welders.

"Guys at Pierce just wanted to work and do their job and went home
and it took probably the right individual to know what was going
on," said John, a longtime employee who did not want to go on
camera. "Everyone makes mistakes.  As long as they correct
themselves, there's no problem."

The judge considers the case closed. The company is waiting for
dismissal to pay out the damages to employees.

Action 2 News spoke to a current employee who was in the courtroom
on May 31 who said: "I never knew anything was wrong, I've been
here since 1989, I just came to work, did my job and went home.
Everyone makes mistakes, as long as they correct the mistakes,
there's no problem," said John.

The website Fox Cities Regional Partnership lists Pierce
Manufacturing as no. 9 on its Major Employers list. [GN]


PINNACLE CREDIT: Faces "Ward" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinnacle Credit
Services, LLC. The case is titled as Valerie A. Ward, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC and First National Collection
Bureau, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03331 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 2, 2017).

Pinnacle Credit purchases portfolios of both domestic (U.S.) and
international consumer debt owned by credit grantors.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


POF INC: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
REYNALDO VASQUEZ and JOHN DOE, on behalf of themselves and
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs, v. POF, INC. d/b/a
DAISY'S FOOD MARKET, AGUSTO ORTIZ and WILDA ORTIZ, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-03660-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., May 22, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the New Jersey State
Wage and Hour Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the other FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have
had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and
are and have been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies,
plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and
rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay
them minimum wage and overtime premium at the rate of one and one
half times the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. A subclass of delivery employees have a claim for an
improper tip credit because they are required to spend more than
two hours per shift or 20% of their daily working time on non-
tipped activities. The claims of Plaintiffs stated are essentially
the same as those of the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs.

The POF, Inc. specializes in authentic African and Caribbean food
produce.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clara Lam, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 0543
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181


POTESTIVO & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Ayers" Suit in W.D. Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Potestivo &
Associates, P.C.  The case is captioned as Tricia A. Ayers, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Potestivo & Associates, P.C. and Detroit Legal News
Publishing, L.L.C., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00461-RJJ-RSK
(W.D. Mich., May 22, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief
Judge Robert J. Jonker.

Potestivo & Associates provides legal solutions to real estate
finance and credit industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian P. Parker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN P. PARKER, P.C.
          2000 Town Center, Ste. 1900
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 342 9583
          E-mail: brianparker@collectionstopper.com


PREFERRED EXTERIOR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ordonez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATEO ORDONEZ on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PREFERRED EXTERIOR CORP., and FRANK
NOTARNICOLA, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03126 (E.D.N.Y., May
23, 2017), seeks to recover premium overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a manual
laborer for Defendants from 2012 to 2016. The Plaintiff worked
from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday with 30-minute
lunch break each day. Plaintiff sometimes worked six days per
week, including Saturday. The Defendants paid Plaintiff a daily
rate regardless of the actual number of the hours worked each
workweek.

Preferred Exterior, located in New Hyde Park, provides roofing and
siding services in Nassau County, Queens and the entire Tri-State
area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          103 Cooper Street
          Babylon, NY 11702
          Telephone: (631) 257 5588
          E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com


PREMIER DERMATOLOGY: Smiths Sue Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY SMITH and STEVE SMITH, on behalf of themselves, and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PREMIER DERMATOLOGY
and FOREFRONT DERMATOLOGY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03712
(N.D. Ill., May 17, 2017), seeks an injunction stopping Defendants
from sending unsolicited text messages, as well as an award of
statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

According to the complaint, on April 18, 2017, Ms. Smith received
a text message from Defendants with the message "From Premier
Dermatology: Stubborn fat? Liposculpture is your solution
Reply BEGIN to converse with me, HELP for help, STOP to opt out.
Msg&Data rates apply". The text message came from the SMS code
95736. Due to the insensitive nature of the text message, the
particular message was unusually abusive.

Despite texting the work "STOP" after receipt of the text on April
18, 2017, Ms. Smith continues to receive text messages from
Defendants. In addition to text messages from Defendants, Ms.
Smith also receives unsolicited emails from Defendants. On April
18, 2017, after receiving an email from Defendants from the email
address info@pdskin-il.com, Ms. Smith replied to the email stating
"DO NOT TEXT ME ANYMORE!!." However, despite these written
revocations of any alleged consent, Ms. Smith continues to receive
unsolicited text messages from Defendants.[BN]

Premier Dermatology specializes in skin cancer treatment and
cosmetic procedures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq.
          SALAS WANG LLC
          73 W. Monroe, Suite 219
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 803 4963

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis Wood, Esq.
          KAS GALLUCCI, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696 9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564 6665


RCI PLUMBING: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan M. Gomez, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. RCI Plumbing Corp., and Liquid Plumbing
Corp., and Robert Cucuzza, Case No. 1:17-cv-03321 (E.D.N.Y., June
2, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a plumbing company located at 547
Midland Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10306. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 679-5000
      Facsimile: (212) 679-5005
      E-mail: ddb@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com


RHB MANAGEMENT: Quimby Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY QUIMBY, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RHB MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a California
corporation; THE ROBERTS COMPANIES, a California limited
partnership; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. BC661584 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 17, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and related relief under Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this class action based on alleged violations
of the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Order,
and the Business and Professions Code, against defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to him and other
similarly situated, current and former employees for unpaid wages
and other related relief. These claims are based on Defendants
alleged failures to provide all rest and meal periods, pay all
wages earned for all hours worked, indemnify for all business
expenses, fairly compete, provide accurate written wage
statements, and timely pay final wages upon termination of
employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dave G. Spivak, Esq.
          Caroline Tahmassian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          9454 Wilsbire Blvd., Ste 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 499 4730
          Facsimile (310) 499 4739
          E-mail: david@spiyaklaw.com
                  woline@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (888) 474 7242
          Facsimile: (562) 256 1006
          E-mail: waltee@whaines.com


REWALK ROBOTICS: Class Action Case Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
ReWalk Robotics Ltd. 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 a class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Case No. 4:17-cv-362) has been voluntarily dismissed.

On September 20, November 3, November 9, and November 10, 2016,
respectively, four putative class actions on behalf of alleged
shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company's ordinary
shares pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
used in connection with the Company's IPO were commenced in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo.
The actions were filed against the Company, certain of the
Company's current and former directors and officers, and the
underwriters of the Company's IPO.

The Company said, "We refer to these actions as the California
State Actions. The complaints in the California State Actions
asserted various claims under the Securities Act. Each of the
California State Actions was dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction in January 2017."

On January 24, 2017, a substantially similar class action was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (Case No. 4:17-cv-362) against the same
defendants as in the California State Actions plus two "Secondary
Offering Defendants" and four "Venture Capital Defendants,"
entities that the complaint alleged to have beneficially owned,
directly or indirectly, approximately 51% of the Company's stock
upon the closing of the IPO. This action alleged claims under
Section 11 of the Securities Act against all defendants, Section
12 of the Securities Act against all defendants except the Venture
Capital Defendants, and Section 15 of the Securities Act against
all defendants except the Underwriter Defendants. This action is
referred to as the California Federal Court Action. On March 23,
2017, this case was voluntarily dismissed.

ReWalk Robotics is an innovative medical device company that
derives revenue from selling the ReWalk Personal and ReWalk
Rehabilitation exoskeleton devices that allow individuals with
paraplegia the ability to stand and walk once again. ReWalk
Personal is designed for everyday use by individuals at home and
in their communities, and is custom-fitted for each user. ReWalk
Rehabilitation is designed for the clinical rehabilitation
environment where it provides valuable exercise and therapy. It
also enables individuals to evaluate their capacity for using
ReWalk Personal in the future.


REWALK ROBOTICS: Massachusetts State Court Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
ReWalk Robotics Ltd. 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 has not
yet responded to the complaints in the Consolidated Massachusetts
State Court Action.

On or about October 31, 2016, a class action with claims
substantially similar to the California State Actions was
commenced in the Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, by
a different plaintiff (Civ. Action No. 16-3336), alleging claims
under Section 11 of the Securities Act against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's IPO, and alleging
claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers.

On or about November 30, 2016, a substantially similar class
action was commenced in the Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk
County, by a different plaintiff (Civ. Action No. 16-3670)
alleging claims under Sections 11 and Section 15 of the Securities
Act against the same defendants as in the action commenced on
October 31, 2016, and also alleging claims under Section 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act against the Company, certain of the
Company's current and former directors and officers, and the
underwriters of the Company's IPO. This action was ordered
consolidated in the Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County
on January 9, 2017 with the action commenced on October 31, 2016,
and the two actions are referred to as the "Consolidated
Massachusetts State Court Actions."

The complaints in all of the actions listed above allege that the
Company's registration statement used in connection with its IPO
failed to disclose that the Company was unprepared or unable to
comply with certain regulatory special controls and to provide the
FDA with a post-market surveillance study on the Company's ReWalk
Personal device, and that, as a result of such alleged omission,
the plaintiffs suffered damages.

The Company believes that the allegations made in the complaints
are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously against
the complaints relating to the three pending actions.

Based on information currently available and the early stage of
the litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a
possible loss or range of possible losses, if any, with regard to
these lawsuits; therefore, no litigation reserve has been recorded
in the Company's consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2017.
The Company will continue to evaluate information as it becomes
known and will record an estimate for losses at the time or times
when it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of
the loss is reasonably estimable.

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Massachusetts State Court
Actions filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 20, 2017.
The Company has not yet responded to the complaints in the
Consolidated Massachusetts State Court Action.

ReWalk Robotics is an innovative medical device company that
derives revenue from selling the ReWalk Personal and ReWalk
Rehabilitation exoskeleton devices that allow individuals with
paraplegia the ability to stand and walk once again. ReWalk
Personal is designed for everyday use by individuals at home and
in their communities, and is custom-fitted for each user. ReWalk
Rehabilitation is designed for the clinical rehabilitation
environment where it provides valuable exercise and therapy. It
also enables individuals to evaluate their capacity for using
ReWalk Personal in the future.


REWALK ROBOTICS: Massachusetts Federal Court Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
ReWalk Robotics Ltd. 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 has not
yet responded to the complaints in the Massachusetts Federal Court
Action.

On or about January 31, 2017, a substantially similar class action
was commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:17-cv-10169) by four of the same
plaintiffs who commenced the California State Court Actions, and
two additional plaintiffs, alleging claims under Section 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against the Company, certain of the
Company's current and former directors and officers, and the
underwriters of the Company's IPO, and alleging claims under
Section 15 of the Securities Act against certain of the Company's
current and former directors and officers. This action is referred
to as the "Massachusetts Federal Court Action."

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Massachusetts State Court
Actions filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 20, 2017.
The Company has not yet responded to the complaints in the
Massachusetts Federal Court Action.

The complaints in all of the actions listed above allege that the
Company's registration statement used in connection with its IPO
failed to disclose that the Company was unprepared or unable to
comply with certain regulatory special controls and to provide the
FDA with a post-market surveillance study on the Company's ReWalk
Personal device, and that, as a result of such alleged omission,
the plaintiffs suffered damages. The Company believes that the
allegations made in the complaints are without merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously against the complaints relating to the
three pending actions.

Based on information currently available and the early stage of
the litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a
possible loss or range of possible losses, if any, with regard to
these lawsuits; therefore, no litigation reserve has been recorded
in the Company's consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2017.
The Company will continue to evaluate information as it becomes
known and will record an estimate for losses at the time or times
when it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of
the loss is reasonably estimable.

ReWalk Robotics is an innovative medical device company that
derives revenue from selling the ReWalk Personal and ReWalk
Rehabilitation exoskeleton devices that allow individuals with
paraplegia the ability to stand and walk once again. ReWalk
Personal is designed for everyday use by individuals at home and
in their communities, and is custom-fitted for each user. ReWalk
Rehabilitation is designed for the clinical rehabilitation
environment where it provides valuable exercise and therapy. It
also enables individuals to evaluate their capacity for using
ReWalk Personal in the future.


SAHARA DREAMS: Faces "Kwan" Suit Under FLSA, New York Labor Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHUI-FAN KWAN a/k/a Connie Kwan, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAHARA DREAMS CO. II INC. f/k/a
SAHARA DREAMS CO. INC. f/k/a SAHARA DREAMS LIMITED d/b/a Dream
Hotel Downtown, SAHARA DREAMS LLC f/k/a SAHARA DREAMS LLC d/b/a
Dream Hotel Downtown, SAHARA HAMPSHIRE HOTEL MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a
Dream Hotel Midtown, SAHARA HAMPSHIRE HOTEL MANAGEMENT CO. II INC.
f/k/a SAHARA HAMPSHIRE HOTEL MANAGEMENT CO. INC. f/k/a SAHARA
HAMPSHIRE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LIMITED d/b/a Dream Hotel
Midtown, HAMPSHIRE HOTELS MANHATTAN LLC d/b/a Dream Hotels d/b/a
Time Hotels d/b/a The Chatwal d/b/a Unscripted Hotel d/b/a Night
Hotel d/b/a Heritage House Resort & Spa d/b/a The Gallivant d/b/a
Hampton Inn d/b/a Days Inn Hotel d/b/a Hilton Garden, HAMPSHIRE
HOTELS GROUP II, LLC d/b/a Dream Hotels d/b/a Time Hotels d/b/a
The Chatwal d/b/a Unscripted Hotel d/b/a Night Hotel d/b/a
Heritage House Resort & Spa d/b/a The Gallivant d/b/a Hampton Inn
d/b/a Days Inn Hotel d/b/a Hilton Garden, HAMPSHIRE HOTELS GROUP,
LLC d/b/a Dream Hotels d/b/a Time Hotels d/b/a The Chatwal d/b/a
Unscripted Hotel d/b/a Night Hotel d/b/a Heritage House Resort &
Spa d/b/a The Gallivant d/b/a Hampton Inn d/b/a Days Inn Hotel
d/b/a Hilton Garden, HAMPSHIRE HOTELS & RESORTS, LLC f/k/a
HAMPSHIRE HOTELS & RESORTS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY d/b/a Dream
Hotels d/b/a Time Hotels d/b/a The Chatwal d/b/a Unscripted Hotel
d/b/a Night Hotel d/b/a Heritage House Resort & Spa d/b/a The
Gallivant d/b/a Hampton Inn d/b/a Days Inn Hotel d/b/a Hilton
Garden, DREAM HOTEL GROUP, LLC f/k/a HAMPSHIRE HOTELS MANAGEMENT
LLC d/b/a Dream Hotels d/b/a Time Hotels d/b/a The Chatwal d/b/a
Unscripted Hotel d/b/a Night Hotel d/b/a Heritage House Resort &
Spa d/b/a The Gallivant d/b/a Hampton Inn d/b/a Days Inn Hotel
d/b/a Hilton Garden, SANT SINGH CHATWAL, VIKRAM CHATWAL, JAY
STEIN, RABINDER PAL SINGH, DAVID KUPERBERG, and SANDEEP WADHWA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04058 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2017),
alleges that Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of the
New York Labor Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of
failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage
for each hour worked and overtime for all hours worked in excess
of forty (40) in each workweek.

The case also raises claims of violations of the New York Minimum
Wage Order and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants operate hotels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Phone: (718) 762-1324
     Fax: (718) 762-1342


SERES THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 9 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Mazurek"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mazurek v. Seres Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-11943 (D. Mass.), Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order
granting a Motion to Continue Hearing on Motion to Dismiss.  A
hearing on the Motion is set for August 9, 2017, at 3:00 p.m.

Seres 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 on September 28, 2016,
a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company entitled Mariusz Mazurek v.
Seres Therapeutics, Inc., et.al., on February 12, 2017, the
Company received an amended complaint and on March 30, 2017, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by
making allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions
about the Company's clinical trials for its product candidate SER-
109 in the Company's public disclosures between June 25, 2015 and
July 29, 2016.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, damages in connection with
the Company's allegedly inflated stock price between June 25, 2015
and July 29, 2016 as a result of those allegedly false and
misleading statements, as well as interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Company can make no assurances as to the time or resources
that will need to be devoted to this lawsuit or its final outcome,
or the impact, if any, of this lawsuit or any proceedings on its
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.

While the Company is vigorously defending against all claims
asserted, this litigation could result in substantial costs to the
Company and a diversion of the Company's management's attention
and resources, which could harm its business.

In addition, the uncertainty of the pending lawsuit or potential
filing of additional lawsuits could lead to more volatility and a
reduction in the Company's stock price. Given the early stage of
the litigation, at this time the Company is unable to reasonably
estimate possible losses or form a judgment that an unfavorable
outcome is either probable or remote. It is not currently possible
to assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings may have
a material adverse effect on the Company.

Seres Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company") was incorporated under
the laws of the State of Delaware in October 2010 under the name
Newco LS21, Inc. In October 2011, the company changed its name to
Seres Health, Inc., and in May 2015, the Company changed its name
to Seres Therapeutics, Inc. The Company is a microbiome
therapeutics platform company developing a novel class of
biological drugs, which are designed to restore health by
repairing the function of a dysbiotic microbiome.


SERVICE LOAN: Faces "Hamilton" Suit in Georgia State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Service Loan Co.
Savannah LLC. The case is captioned as FIRZANA HAMILTON ON BEHALF
OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
SERVICE LOAN CO. SAVANNAH LLC; AND WALTERS MANAGEMENT LLC AND JANE
DOE AN EMPLOYEE OF SERVICE LOAN CO SAVANNAH LLC, Case No.
STCV1700825 (Georgia State Ct., Fla., May 22, 2017). The case is
the Hon. Judge Gregory V. Sapp.[BN]

Service Loan offers loan application services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly Copeland, Esq.
          Post Office Box 1091
          Jesup, GA, 31598
          Telephone: (912)530 7317


SPROUTS FARMERS: Appeals Order to Remand Securities Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended April 2, 2017, that the Company's
appeal of the federal court decision to remand a securities class
action lawsuit remains pending.

On March 4, 2016, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of Arizona against the Company and certain of its
directors and officers on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock in the
Company's underwritten secondary public offering which closed on
March 10, 2015 (the "March 2015 Offering"). The complaint purports
to state claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, based on an alleged failure by the Company to
disclose adequate information about produce price deflation in the
March 2015 Offering documents. The complaint seeks damages on
behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount,
rescission, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 24, 2016, the Company removed the action to federal court
in the District of Arizona. On March 24, 2017, the federal court
in the District of Arizona remanded the case to state court.

On April 21, 2017, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal of the
federal court decision to remand the case. The Company intends to
defend this case vigorously, but it is not possible at this time
to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or any potential liability
from, the case.

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a Delaware corporation, through its
subsidiaries, operates as a healthy grocery store that offers
fresh, natural and organic food through a complete shopping
experience that includes fresh produce, bulk foods, vitamins and
supplements, packaged groceries, meat and seafood, deli, baked
goods, dairy products, frozen foods, beer and wine, natural body
care and household items catering to consumers' growing interest
in health and wellness.


STREAM ENERGY: Plaintiffs Obtain Favorable Ruling in Fraud Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ilya Shapiro and Thomas Berry, writing for CATO, report that
Stream Energy is a retail gas and electrical energy provider whose
business model allows prospective salesmen to purchase the right
to sell its products and to recruit new salesmen.  In 2014, some
former salesmen brought a class-action lawsuit against Stream for
fraud, alleging that the company's business model constituted an
illegal pyramid scheme.

But unusually for a fraud claim, the plaintiffs argued that they
didn't need to identify any specific misrepresentations made by
Stream that might have convinced particular class members to
become salesmen.  Instead, the plaintiffs claimed that simply
offering membership in an illegally structured business would be
fraud in and of itself, even if people joined with full knowledge
of all risks and benefits.

A federal district court in Texas certified the class, so Stream
appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  A three-judge panel reversed the district court, holding
that a class could not be certified because each plaintiff must
individually prove that he was subject to a misrepresentation.
But the entire Fifth Circuit then reheard the appeal and ruled for
the plaintiffs.  The court didn't rule on whether Stream was in
fact engaged in an illegal pyramid scheme, but did affirm the
class certification, accepting the plaintiff's theory that a
single proof of illegal structuring would prove a fraud against
every one of Stream's salespeople.

Stream has asked the Supreme Court to review this last question,
and Cato has filed an amicus brief supporting that petition. In
our brief, we explain why it is dangerous to hold that someone can
be liable for fraud without ever having made a misrepresentation.
Reasonable judicial limitations on liability are essential to
protecting the personal autonomy of all parties in a case.

In the fraud context, the key inquiry has always been whether the
alleged fraudster made a specific misrepresentation on which
someone actually relied to her detriment.  To be liable for
someone else's losses, not only must a particular
misrepresentation have been made, but it must have been the direct
or "proximate" cause of those losses.  By abandoning this
proximate-cause rule and holding that misrepresentation isn't
necessary for potential fraud liability, the Fifth Circuit removed
an important check on liability.

If individual reliance on a misrepresentation need not be proven,
savvy investors may search out multi-level marketing programs,
knowingly put their money in such risky ventures, and then sue for
fraud if their investment doesn't yield a profit. This
significantly increases the likelihood of improper class-action
lawsuits--potentially subjecting undeserving defendants to
crushing liability.

Instead of that uncertainty, businesses should instead be secure
in the simple legal rule that has worked for centuries: if you
don't want to be liable for fraud, don't lie about what you're
selling.

The Supreme Court should take the case of SGE Management v. Torres
and ultimately reverse the Fifth Circuit. [GN]


SURFSTITCH: Shareholder Class Action Proceedings Put on Ice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katie Walsh, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
court proceedings for the multimillion-dollar class action brought
by disgruntled shareholders against SurfStitch have been put on
ice while the parties negotiate with a potential settlement on the
cards.

A resolution would bring the state of Queensland its first
finalised class action just three months into its new regime,
established after significant matters were forced to head south
including one filed in NSW seeking compensation for damages
stemming from the 2011 Queensland floods.

"It makes sense to narrow what's in dispute, and if you can narrow
it to nought it's fantastic," said Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan partner Damian Scattini --
damianscattini@quinnemanuel.com -- who is acting for the
shareholders.

"We are going to see whether we can narrow the areas of dispute.
If so, that's great.  If not, then we box on."

Surfstitch explores settlement

The SurfStitch class action was filed in the Supreme Court of
Queensland and within three days the company made statements to
the sharemarket over its desire to explore "a negotiated
settlement", noting the level of damages sought, while "unknown",
were "likely to be substantial and, as such, material by
comparison to the current market capitalisation of the company".

The plaintiff shareholders, led by 78-year-old retiree Warwick
Cook, are claiming misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of
continuous disclosure obligations due to overstated profit
forecasts by the company.

Supreme Court of Queensland Judge Peter Applegarth has agreed to
put the matter on hold for 14 days while the parties enter
discussions.  They return to court on June 19.

Reaching a settlement would be an impressive feat and a first for
Queensland since introducing its class actions regime on March 1,
almost 25 years to the day since Australia's first class actions
regime was introduced in the Federal Court.

Victoria and NSW have had regimes since 2000 and 2011, attracting
77 and 19 matters respectively, according to statistics gathered
by Monash University professor Vince Morabito.  Western Australia
is considering introducing its own regime.

Professor Morabito said he suspected NSW and Victoria would always
dominate, but it did "increase the potential for competing class
actions in the three states"; something courts would have to deal
with.

On June 1, Maurice Blackburn principal Rebecca Gilsenan and UNSW
Law associate professor Michael Legg presented a detailed report
on the range of options for designing a settlement distribution
scheme, the first of its kind, as part of a research initiative
backed by funder IMF Bentham.  Schemes could achieve "sufficient
precision with less cost and delay than mass tort" equivalents,
they noted.

Settlements in class actions are a unique beast: they are devised
between the parties by negotiation, yet are subject to court
approval.

"[T]o gain the imprimatur of the court, which is itself required
to do justice, a [settlement distribution scheme] is expected to
afford some degree of procedural fairness to the group members who
have their claims determined by the . . . process," they write.

"There is no single correct approach but rather a need to strike
the right balance between precision and efficiency in the
circumstances of the particular case."

Fox in the Hen House

Queensland's entry into the space is just one of a number of
changes contributing to a dramatic growth in class actions claims.

The 25th anniversary of Australia's class actions regime prompted
a series of reflection pieces: Herbert Smith Freehills produced a
peerless book giving comprehensive insights; Gilbert + Tobin has
built a "mini site" and Allens a series of reports, each to help
clients navigate a landscape that is escalating in concern for
companies.

At Quinn Emanuel, it was timed with another celebration: more than
one year with what the Sydney leading partners like to call a "fox
in the hen house".

That fox is Mr Scattini, who joined in November 2015 from market
leading plaintiff outfit Maurice Blackburn, where he led the
Queensland class actions practice. It is unusual to see plaintiff
and defendant lawyers within the one firm in Australia, although
it is more common in the US.

Quinn Emanuel managing partner Michelle Fox said it enabled the
firm to "service both sides of any commercial dispute" and gave
them a unique and "unusual perspective on plaintiff side strategy
in the defence of matters".

She said class actions were evolving, from a predominant focus on
securities actions to a broad range of areas from products to
natural disasters.

"Class actions serve a real purpose, particularly where you have a
number of people who have each suffered losses that may not on
their own support the legal costs required to right the wrong,"
she said.

They denied internal conflicts, work or otherwise: Queenslander Mr
Scattini saw his state's rugby league team outplayed by their NSW
counterparts in the State of Origin. Ms Fox, despite a US
upbringing, is a rusted-on supporter of the Blues after more than
a decade in Sydney. But Mr Scattini has an unlikely comrade in
Sydneysider and co-managing partner Michael Mills: Mr Mills'
father represented Queensland in the rugby union State of Origin,
making him a supporter of the state's maroon team.

"I am going to get my maroon velvet jacket dry-cleaned in
anticipation of the return match," Mr Scattini said. [GN]


SWH MIMI'S: Faces "Nunez" Wage-and-Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------
JOSE NUNEZ, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. SWH MIMI'S CAFE, LLC,
a California limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 20,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC663814 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 2, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid monies under Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated current and former non-exempt hourly wage
earners employed in the State of California.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and Class Members were
required to work off the clock and were not compensated for any
such work. The Plaintiff and Class Members were denied the
opportunity to take legally mandated duty-free 10-minute rest
periods and 30-minute meal periods.

Mimi's Cafe is a US restaurant chain with 145 locations in 24
states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A. Jacob Nalbandayan, Esq.
          Charles L. Shute, Esq.
          EMPLOYEE'S LEGAL ADVOCATES, LLP
          811 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232 4848
          Facsimile: (213) 232 4849
          E-mail: jnalbandayan@employeesla.com


TARGET: 8th Cir. Rejects Lone Objector's Class-Conflict Arguments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Rozen, Esq. -- rrozen@carltonfields.com -- and Gary M.
Pappas, Esq. -- gpappas@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton Fields, in
an article for Mondaq, wrote that in 2015, Target settled a class
action stemming from a massive data breach of its customers'
sensitive information.  According to the settlement terms, Target
agreed to pay $10 million to those affected. The Minnesota
district court originally granted approval over the class and the
settlement.  However a lone objector filed an appeal, and the
Eighth Circuit granted a limited remand because it was not
satisfied the district court had conducted a "rigorous analysis"
of the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.

Specifically, the Eighth Circuit mandated that the lower court's
analysis include an evaluation of the objector's intra-class
conflict arguments.  The objector argued a conflict existed
because the class representatives included class members who
suffered a monetary loss due to the breach and others who did not.
Under the settlement terms, those who suffered a loss would be
eligible for reimbursement while those who did not suffer a loss
would receive a pro-rata share of the remaining settlement funds.
The objector argued this structure created a conflict.

After conducting a "rigorous analysis" the district court rejected
the objector's arguments.  In reviewing the potential conflict,
the court clarified the two components of a class-conflict
analysis:  first, whether there are class representatives who have
suffered the same or similar injury as the class members; and
second, whether some class representatives and class counsel have
interests that are so at odds with other class representatives and
class members that a singular class is inappropriate.  The court
quickly established that the first element was met, and focused
its decision on the second prong of the test.

The court stated that in order to defeat Rule 23's adequacy
requirement, a conflict must be "actual" and "fundamental."  The
objector argued the conflict in this case is similar to that found
in asbestos class action litigation where the class included those
individuals with current injuries as well as those with potential
future injuries from asbestos exposure, including those who might
not, or could not, be aware of their membership in the class.  The
court rejected this argument because the data breach occurred
nearly four years ago and all those involved know about the breach
and have suffered any injury they are reasonably likely to suffer.
Therefore, there are "no unascertainable members of the class, and
no attendant due process concerns."

The court determined no conflict existed because all plaintiffs
are fully compensated under the terms of the settlement.  Those
who suffered losses will be reimbursed and those who did not
suffer losses will benefit from the heightened protections Target
agreed to put in place, as well as receive a pro-rata share of any
remaining settlement funds.  The court explained that "the mere
fact that one group of claimants recovers less than another group
does not mean that a single class is inadequate to represent both
groups."  Thus, the settlement did not disadvantage one group of
plaintiffs to the benefit of another.

The court concluded it is insufficient to merely argue a
settlement is not good enough.  An objector must present evidence
of an "actual, fundamental conflict."  The objector's failure to
do so in this case showed the representation by class members and
class counsel was fair and adequate and the class could be
certified with no need for subclasses. [GN]


TD BANK: "Dorsey" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled SHAINA DORSEY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TD
Bank NA. the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00074, was transferred on
June 2,2017 from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina (Greenville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:17-cv-01432-BHH to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks.[BN]

TD Bank is an American national bank chartered and supervised by
the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Patrick Denittis
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC
          5 Greentree Center
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797 9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797 9978

The Defendant is represented by:

          Susan M. Leming, Esq.
          BROWN & CONNERY, LLP
          360 Haddon Avenue
          Westmont, NJ 08108
          Telephone: (856) 854 8900
          E-mail: sleming@brownconnery.com


TOTAL SYSTEM: $6.5MM Settlement in "Heidarpour" Case Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total System 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 the settlement
agreement in the case, Heidarpour v. Central Payment Co., LLC, was
given final approval by the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia on May 4, 2017.

Central Payment Co., LLC (CPAY), a majority owned joint venture of
the Company, has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action complaint, Heidarpour v. Central Payment Co., LLC, Civil
Action No. 4:15-cv-00139, filed August 18, 2015 in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, relating
to the activities of Korthals, LLC ("Korthals") and its sole
shareholder, an independent sales agent of CPAY. The complaint
alleges that CPAY retained Korthals to send unsolicited commercial
pre-recorded messages to residential phone numbers in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sections227 et
seq.). The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief among
other remedies.

On December 20, 2016, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement with regard to this matter.  Among other things, the
settlement agreement required CPAY to create a settlement fund of
$6.5 million for a nationwide class of plaintiffs. The settlement
agreement was given final approval by the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Georgia on May 4, 2017.

Total System Services, Inc.'s revenues are derived from providing
payment processing, merchant services and related payment services
to financial and nonfinancial institutions, generally under long-
term processing contracts. The Company also derives revenues by
providing general-purpose reloadable (GPR) prepaid debit cards and
payroll cards and alternative financial services to underbanked
consumers. The Company's services are provided through three
operating segments: Issuer Solutions, Merchant Solutions and
Netspend.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Rattigan, Esq. -- krattigan@rc.com -- of Robinson+Cole, in
an article for JDSupra, reports that Central Florida Regional
Hospital (the Hospital) was released from a proposed class action
for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA).  The Hospital's debt collector, Transworld Systems,
allegedly made autodialed calls to collect overdue hospital debts
without prior patient consent.  Lead plaintiff, Charles Ivy,
former emergency room patient at the Hospital, claimed that he
received several autodialed calls from the Hospital, through
Transworld Systems, to collect a debt owed for services provided
by while in the emergency room.  Mr. Ivy alleged that the
autodialed calls began in August 2015.  When he answered one of
the calls in August 2016, a Transworld Systems' agent explained to
Mr. Ivy that he owed approximately $150 on a medical bill from May
2015.  Mr. Ivy refused to pay the $150 because he had already paid
$12,000 for his treatment, and he asked that the calls cease.
Overall, Mr. Ivy alleged that he received over 220 calls -- 30
from the Hospital and about 190 from Transworld Systems by January
2017. Mr. Ivy claimed that he never gave consent to the Hospital
to receive these calls as the TCPA requires.  However, the
Hospital moved to dismiss the claims because the Hospital had
records that made it clear that Ivy had agreed to receive
autodialed calls -- meaning no TCPA violation.

U.S. District Judge Gregory A. Presnell tossed Mr. Ivy's claims
after Ivy voluntarily dismissed his allegations against the
Hospital; Ivy, did not, however, drop his claims against
Transworld Systems. He still seeks to represent a class of
plaintiffs who were admitted to the Hospital since February 6,
2013 who have received unauthorized, automated calls from
Transworld Systems. [GN]


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Grisanzio" Suit Moved to E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled John Grisanzio, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Transworld Systems, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 621248/2016, was
removed on May 23, 2017 from the Supreme Court of the State of NY,
County of Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Central Islip). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-03118-ADS-SIL to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Arthur D. Spatt.

Transworld Systems provides accounts receivable, debt recovery,
and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies,
and dental companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335 1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aaron R Easley, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL LLC
          3 Cross Creek Drive
          Flemington, NJ 08822
          Telephone: (908) 237 1660
          Facsimile: (908) 237 1663
          E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal


U.S. BANCORP: Elswick Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled The Elswick Company, LLC, doing
business as: Anytime Fitness Elkview on their own behalf and on
behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. Bancorp
Government Leasing and Finance, Inc. as Trustee for the Benefit of
the Holders of Comm 2013-CCRE12 Mortgagee Trust Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates; Comm 2013 CCRE12, LLC; Wells
Fargo Commercial Mortgage Servicing, Case No. 17-C-509, was
removed on May 22, 2017 from the Kanawha County Circuit, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
(Charleston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
03003 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Thomas E. Johnston.

U.S. Bancorp helps organization with leasing products designed to
finance projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander D. McLaughlin, Esq.
          THE CALWELL PRACTICE
          P. O. Box 113
          Charleston, WV 25321-0113
          Telephone: (304) 343 4323
          Facsimile: (304) 344 3684
          E-mail: amclaughlin@calwelllaw.com

               - and -

          John H. Skaggs, Esq.
          W. Stuart Calwell, Esq.
          THE CALWELL PRACTICE
          Law and Arts Center West
          500 Randolph Street
          Charleston, WV 25302
          Telephone: (304) 343 4323
          Facsimile: (304) 344 3684
          E-mail: jskaggs@calwelllaw.com
                  scalwell@calwelllaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gerard R. Stowers, Esq.
          J. Mark Adkins, Esq.
          Jessie F. Reckart, Esq.
          BOWLES RICE MCDAVID GRAFF & LOVE
          P. O. Box 1386
          Charleston, WV 25325-1386
          Telephone: (304) 347 1100
          Facsimile: (304) 347 1756
          E-mail: gstowers@bowlesrice.com
                  madkins@bowlesrice.com
                  jreckart@bowlesrice.com


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Lebovic" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau Inc. The case is captioned as Sholtiel Lebovic,
individually and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. United Collection Bureau Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-03111-FB-RML (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Frederic Block.

United Collection provides debt collection services for companies
(government, healthcare, utility, financial service,
communication, and student.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Avenue, No. 113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651 1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


UNITED STATES: Faces Kane County Suit in Federal Claims Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA. The case is
entitled as KANE COUNTY, UTAH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. USA, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00739-EDK (U.S. Ct. Fed. Claims, June 5, 2017).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elaine D. Kaplan.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan I. Saltman, Esq.
          SMITH, CURRIE & HANCOCK LLP (DC)
          1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 452 2140
          Facsimile: (202) 775 8217
          E-mail: aisaltman@smithcurrie.com


UNITED VAN: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, "Dennis" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sammy Dennis, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. United Van Lines, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-01614 (E.D.
Miss., June 2, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay truck driver's minimum wage for all hours worked.

United Van Lines, LLC specializes in moving household and
commercial goods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John F. Edgar, Esq.
      EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
      1032 Pennsylvania Ave.
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 531-0033
      Facsimile: (816) 531-3322
      E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
              mts@edgarlawfirm.com

         - and -

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


VITAMIN COTTAGE: Davis, et al. Allege FLSA, Col. Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL DAVIS, DONALD GUY, KELSEY MACEY, JOSEPH PORCARO, JUSTIN
SALISBURY, RACHEL SELBST, JENNY SINGER, KEVIN TRUJILLO, AND
CATHERINE WILSON individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, v. VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS,
INC., d/b/a NATURAL GROCERS, VITAMIN COTTAGE, VITAMIN COTTAGE
NATURAL GROCERS, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01301 (D. Col., May
30, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs are subject to the same illegal
policy and practice of Defendant of failing to pay workers for all
time worked and failing to pay overtime wages; are improperly
classified as salary employees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Colorado law; were/are not properly paid for
overtime, time and a half, for over 40 hours in a workweek
pursuant to the FLSA and Colorado law; were/are not properly paid
for all work performed for the benefit of the employer, including,
but not limited to travel time, interrupted meal breaks, emails
and other work performed for the benefit of Defendant pursuant to
Colorado law.

Defendant is a Colorado based health food grocery store.  Named
Plaintiffs worked as New Store Operations Team Members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Colleen T. Calandra, Esq.
     Jessica L. Derakhshanian, Esq.
     RAMOS LAW, LLC
     3000 Youngfield Street
     Wheat Ridge, CO 80215
     Phone: (303) 733-6353
     Fax: (303) 865-5666
     E-mail: colleen@ramoslaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Artola, et al. Sue Over Defective Audi Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned LLOYD ARTOLA, ANGEL ESQUIJAROSA, DEMETRIE
HYLICK, and MICHAEL SPENCER on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
AUDI AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT and AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-21296 (originally, Case No. 2:17-cv-03805, S.D.
Fla., April 6, 2017) was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, according to a case docket
entry dated May 30, 2017.

The case alleges violations of common and statutory law and
concealment of a known defect in the 2008 through 2013 model year
2.0L TSI or 2.0L TFSI VW of Audi vehicles.

Allegedly, Defendants wrongfully and intentionally concealed a
defect in the timing chain system of the Class Vehicles, which can
fail at any time, forcing users of the vehicles to incur out of
pocket costs to repair or replace the damaged engine parts or
their entire engine.

Defendants are automobile manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Peter Prieto, Esq.
     John Gravante, Esq.
     Matthew P. Weinshal, Esq.
     Alissa Del Riego, Esq.
     PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
     SunTrust International Center
     One S.E. 3rd Ave, Suite 2700
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 358-2800
     Fax: (305) 358-2382
     E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
             jgravante@podhurst.com
             mweinshall@podhurst.com
             adelriego@podhurst.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Kenny" Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kris Kenny, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation; U.S. Healthworks Medical Group, a California
Corporation; and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No.
CIVDS1700766, was removed on May 17, 2017 from the San Bernardino
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-00967-R-KK to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Manuel L. Real.

Wal-Mart, doing business as Walmart, is an American multinational
retailing corporation that operates as a chain of hypermarkets,
discount department stores, and grocery stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brennan S Kahn, Esq.
          Todd H Harrison, Esq.
          PERONA LANGER BECK SERBIN AND MENDOZA
          300 East San Antonio Dr
          Long Beach, CA 90807-0948
          Telephone: (562) 426 6155
          Facsimile: (562) 490 9823
          E-mail: brennankahn@plblaw.com
                  toddharrison@plblaw.com

               - and -

          David M deRubertis, Esq.
          Kelly A Knight, Esq.
          THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, APC
          4219 Coldwater Canyon Avenue
          Studio City, CA 91604
          Telephone: (818) 761 2322
          Facsimile: (818) 761 2323
          E-mail: david@derubertislaw.com
                  kelly@derubertislaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ashley Michelle Farrell, Esq.
          Mark D Kemple, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (310) 586 7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586 7800
          E-mail: farrellpicketta@gtlaw.com
                  kemplem@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce James Quilligan, Esq.
          DOYLE SCHAFER MCMAHON LLP
          100 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 520
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 727 7077
          Facsimile: (949) 727 1284
          E-mail: bquilligan@dsmllp.com


ZILLOW GROUP: Expects to Make Settlement Payments During 2017
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, 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 of a
class action lawsuit has not yet been approved by the court, and
the Company expects to make the voluntary payments contemplated by
the class action settlement agreement during 2017.

In March 2015, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department
of Labor ("DOL") notified the Company that it was initiating a
compliance review to determine the Company's compliance with one
or more federal labor laws enforced by the DOL.

On May 5, 2016, Zillow, Inc. agreed to settle a class action
lawsuit which alleged, among other things, claims that the Company
failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to pay overtime,
and failed to keep accurate records of employees' hours worked.
The settlement of the class action lawsuit, which has not yet been
approved by the court, was contingent on Zillow, Inc.'s complete
resolution of the DOL compliance review.

On November 28, 2016, Zillow, Inc. entered into a settlement
agreement with the DOL that resolved the DOL's compliance review.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Zillow, Inc. agreed
that it will make the voluntary payments contemplated by the class
action lawsuit settlement and establish and maintain certain
procedures to promote future compliance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

"We expect to make the voluntary payments contemplated by the
settlement agreement during 2017," the Company said. The
settlement agreement with the DOL does not require Zillow, Inc. to
make any payments which are in addition to those contemplated by
the class action lawsuit settlement. Zillow, Inc. has not admitted
liability with respect to either the DOL settlement or the class
action lawsuit settlement.

Zillow Group, Inc. operates a real estate and home-related
information marketplaces on mobile and the web, with a
complementary portfolio of brands and products to help consumers
find vital information about homes and connect with local
professionals.


ZILLOW GROUP: $6MM "Freeman" Case Settlement Has Initial Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the class action captioned as, Ian Freeman v.
Zillow, Inc., was granted preliminary approval by Judge Josephine
L. Staton, according to a Minute order dated May 26, 2017.

Zillow Group, 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, said, "In November 2014, a
former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit against us
in the United States District Court, Central District of
California, with the caption Ian Freeman v. Zillow, Inc. The
complaint alleged, among other things, claims that we failed to
provide meal and rest breaks, failed to pay overtime, and failed
to keep accurate records of employees' hours worked. After the
court granted our two motions to dismiss certain claims, plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint that includes claims under the
Fair Labor Standards Act."

"On November 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On February 26, 2016, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification. On May 5, 2016, the
parties agreed to settle the lawsuit, which was later memorialized
in a settlement agreement executed by the parties on December 2,
2016, with payment by Zillow, Inc. of up to $6.0 million.

"On June 9, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted our
petition for permission to appeal the order granting class
certification. The settlement does not contain any admission of
liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the parties.

"On April 10, 2017, the parties executed an amendment to the
settlement agreement providing that the settlement class includes
all current and former inside sales consultants employed by
Zillow, Inc. in (i) its California offices from November 19, 2010
through the date on which the court grants preliminary approval
and (ii) its Washington offices from March 1, 2013 through the
date on which the court grants preliminary approval. The
settlement is subject to court approval.

"We have recorded a liability related to the settlement for $6.0
million as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. We do not
believe there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss in
excess of amounts accrued may be incurred."

Zillow Group, Inc. operates a real estate and home-related
information marketplaces on mobile and the web, with a
complementary portfolio of brands and products to help consumers
find vital information about homes and connect with local
professionals.


* Class Actions Surge Under NJ's Consumer Protection Laws
---------------------------------------------------------
Thuy-Dien Bui, Esq. -- tbui@goulstonstorrs.com -- and Andrew
Ferren, Esq. -- aferren@goulstonstorrs.com -- of Goulston & Storrs
PC, in an article for JDSupra, asked, does your retail business
conduct sales online?

For most retailers today, the answer is likely yes.  This means
that the recent surge of class action lawsuits against merchants
arising out of a consumer protection law in New Jersey called the
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA)
merits your attention. This statute is still relatively under the
radar of many retail businesses.  Yet the numerous class action
lawsuits that have been filed under the TCCWNA, and the variety of
businesses across the country that have been targeted, indicates
that retailers that conduct business online should be on alert,
even if they do not have a physical presence in New Jersey.

New Jersey's TCCWNA prohibits sellers from entering into a
consumer contract or displaying any consumer notice "which
includes a provision that violates any clearly established legal
right of a consumer or responsibility of a seller . . . as
established by State or Federal Law."  Furthermore, the TCCWNA
expressly provides that a seller cannot immunize itself with a
catch-all savings clause in such contract or notice that states
that "any of [its] provisions is or may be void, unenforceable, or
inapplicable in some jurisdictions without specifying which
provisions are or are not void, unenforceable, or inapplicable
within the State of New Jersey."

The TCCWNA lay dormant for decades after it was signed into law in
1982 and has only recently been resurrected by plaintiffs seeking
to take advantage of the vulnerability that the TCCWNA exposes in
the era of e-commerce.  Under the TCCWNA, a retailer that does
business online with New Jersey customers is subject to the
TCCWNA, whether or not the retailer has a physical presence in New
Jersey.  Many of the class action lawsuits that have been filed
against retailers have focused on the retailer's online Terms of
Sale.  While the TCCWNA applies equally to sellers that have brick
and mortar stores in New Jersey, the TCCWNA also creates potential
liability for unsuspecting retailers that do not have a physical
presence in New Jersey.  The statute requires that both in-state
and out-of-state businesses know New Jersey law well enough to
ensure that their Terms of Sale do not violate any clearly
established New Jersey law.  The chart below from the New Jersey
Civil Justice Institute shows that lawsuits under the TCCWNA have
skyrocketed in recent years, indicating that plaintiffs (or their
class action lawyers) have taken advantage of retailers' lack of
knowledge regarding both the TCCWNA and clearly established New
Jersey law.  In the last year alone, a diverse array of retailers
have been targeted, including Toys "R" Us, J. Crew, and Bob's
Discount Furniture, to name a few.

Chart for Blog 5:31

Retailers targeted by TCCWNA claims could face significant
exposure given that damages under a class action case can reach
millions of dollars and the non-prevailing party may be required
to pay the prevailing party's attorneys' fees.  Furthermore, the
many uncertainties in how the statute is interpreted are making it
difficult for retailers to assess their potential liability in
order to devise an appropriate strategy.

This year may yield some clarity and guidance from New Jersey
regarding the TCCWNA.  In April 2017, the Supreme Court of New
Jersey agreed to answer two certified questions presented to it by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The
first question is whether a consumer who has not suffered any
adverse consequences from a retailer's non-compliance with the
TCCWNA can be considered an "aggrieved consumer" under the law.
The second question is whether a violation of a New Jersey
regulation alone would constitute a violation of a "clearly
established legal right" under the TCCWNA.

In addition, New Jersey legislators have introduced bills that are
aimed at both expanding the reach of the TCCWNA as well as
limiting it.  New Jersey Assembly Bill 759, which was introduced
in January 2016, proposes to expand the protections under the
TCCWNA to prohibit the inclusion of provisions in the Terms of
Sale that limit customers' rights under the TCCWNA or require
customers to waive those rights, including the right to bring a
class action.  New Jersey Assembly Bill 4121, which was introduced
in September 2016, seeks to narrow the class certification by
prohibiting class certification for TCCWNA claims "in the absence
of an ascertainable economic loss resulting from the alleged
violation."  If either of the Bills is passed and signed into law,
it could have a significant impact on TCCWNA litigation.

Since retailers will have to wait until later this year or longer
for clarity from the New Jersey Supreme Court and from the New
Jersey legislature, retailers who conduct business online may
consider reviewing their Terms of Sale to identify any provisions
that are obviously in violation of the TCCWNA and revising such
provisions in order to reduce the likelihood of being targeted by
class action plaintiffs.  Meanwhile, retailers should keep abreast
of developments in the New Jersey courts and legislature
concerning the TCCWNA, as these developments may prescribe the
degree of attention and resources such retailers will need to
devote to minimizing their exposure under the TCCWNA. [GN]


* U.S. Marketers Brace for Canada Anti-Spam Law Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq., of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article
for Lexology, provided information on Canada Anti-Spam Law.

CASL was passed into law on December 15, 2010, over the vigorous
objection of marketers and business owners, and became effective
on July 1, 2014.  CASL can best be understood as a two-headed
monster, essentially a Canadian hybrid of many of the most onerous
provisions of the U.S. Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited
Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 ("CAN-SPAM") and the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA").  CASL
prohibits all commercial electronic messages ("CEMs") that are
sent to or from Canada without proper consumer consent, including
e-mail, text, social media, voice and image messages.  Similar to
the TCPA, CASL has a strict "opt-in" framework.

Who Can Be Sued Under CASL?

Any individual or business entity that sends, or assists in
sending, a CEM to a consumer in Canada is subject to CASL.
Moreover, any CEM that is sent from, routed to or accessed from a
device in Canada is subject to CASL regulations.  Corporate
officers, directors and agents may be held personally liable if
they directed, authorized, acquiesced or participated in the
commission of a CASL violation.

What are the Penalties for Failing to Comply with CASL?

CASL provides for either actual damages or statutory damages of
$200.00 per each violation, up to a maximum of C$1 million/day for
individuals and C$10 million/day for corporate entities.  In
determining the final amount of statutory damages to award, courts
analyze the personal/corporate history of the violator(s), the
financial benefit obtained and the nature and scope of the
violation(s).  Considering that marketing campaigns may involve
millions of CEMs, potential damages under CASL may escalate very
quickly.

Class Actions Under CASL?

Effective July 1, 2017, CASL will allow individuals to file
private and class action lawsuits to collect statutory damages.
Because the CASL requirements are so broad, so strict and so
easily violated, U.S. marketers that send email or text messages
to Canadian residents can expect to see a flood of CASL-specific
class action lawsuits.  Moreover, CASL drafters did not provide
any guidance as to whether the statute will allow for retroactive
claims.  As such, it is an open question of whether, starting July
1, 2017, plaintiffs can only sue for CEMs sent after that date, or
for those messages sent over the prior three years.  Regardless of
the ultimate answer, we expect class action attorneys to take the
aggressive, retroactive approach from day one.

My Company is Located in the U.S., Can We Be Sued under CASL?

Yes, as can the officers and directors of your company.  Canadian
class action law firms are no doubt poised to file class action
lawsuits against U.S. marketing companies, and to drag them into
Canada to defend CASL class action cases.  It is also possible
that Canadian plaintiffs will join with U.S. class action firms
and seek to file claims in jurisdictions where the U.S. business
is incorporated or has a principal place of business.

How to Defend a CASL Lawsuit?

If you are named in a CASL lawsuit, there are many factual and
legal defenses that an attorney, knowledgeable and experienced in
the nuances of CASL, can help you identify and assert.  For
example, business-to-business CEMs and those that are purely
informational in nature are not subject to CASL regulations.
Moreover, no CASL liability should attach where the CEMs are: not
intended to be accessed in Canada, provided that the sender
conforms to the laws of the target country; sent within six (6)
months of receiving a consumer's request, inquiry or complaint;
solely consist of political content; sent to consumers with whom
the sender has an existing business relationship; sent to
consumers with whom the sender has a familial, personal or other
non-business relationship; sent on a one-time basis to consumers
referred by a person that has an existing relationship with the
sender; etc.

How to Avoid A CASL Lawsuit?

As always, a penny of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  If
your business or your marketing firm utilizes CEMs, which you
almost certainly do, you are at substantial risk that such
messages could be routed to or accessed from a device in Canada,
which would, thereby, subject you to CASL.  Retaining attorneys,
knowledgeable and experienced in the nuances of CASL, class action
defense, Internet practices and online marketing, who know the red
flags that class action law firms look for, could save you
substantial time and money, as well as allow you to avoid the
distraction of dealing with avoidable litigation.

This topic should be of interest to any company or individual
engaging in online marketing.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic, please
refer to our CASL white paper and/or feel free to e-mail us at
info@kleinmoynihan.com or call us at (212) 246-0900. [GN]



                         *********


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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *